STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

1. THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee vs. WILLIAM C. HART, C. J. MILLER,

and SERVILIANO NATIVIDAD, defendants-appellants.,

TITLE US vs. Heart

GR NUMBER G.R. No. L-8848

DATE November 21, 1913

PONENTE TRENT, J.

NATURE/KEYWORDS

FACTS  The appellants, Hart, Miller, and

Natividad, were found guilty of a charge
ofvagrancy under the provisions of the Act. No
519. All three filed appeals and offered proofthat
each defendant was making enough money from
a legal trade or company to support themselves.
 The Attorney General defended his clients by
contending that the phrase "novisible means of
support" in Section 1 of Act No. 519 only
applies to the clause "trampingor straying
through the country" and not the first clause,
which states that every personfound loitering
around saloons, dram shops, or gambling
houses" is guilty of vagrancy,which would make
the three appellants guilty.
 He further argued that it had been
intendedwithout visible means of support to
qualify the first part of the clause; either the
comma after gambling houses would have been
omitted, or else a comma after country would
have been inserted.
ISSUE(S) 1. Whether Hart, Miller, and Natividad are guilty of
vagrancy under the Attorney-General’s argument based
on a mere grammatical criticism.
(Comma after gambling houses would have been...
omitted, or else a comma after country would have been
inserted)

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION - CASE DIGEST ATIENZA, V.

 RULING(S) No. The argument based upon punctuation alone is not
conclusive and the effectintended by the Legislature should be
the relevant determinant of the interpretation of thelaw.
Considering that the argument of the Attorney-General would
suggest a lack of logicalclassification on the part of the
legislature of the various classes of vagrants and since itwas
proven that all three of the defendants were earning a living by
legitimate means at alllevels of comfort higher than usual, Hart-
Miller and Natividad were acquitted, with thecosts de oficio

DOCTRINE/PRINCIPLES When the meaning of a legislative enactment is in question, it is

the duty of thecourts to ascertain, if possible, the true legislative
intention, and adopt the construction ofthe statute which will
give it effect. Moreover, ascertaining the consequences flowing
from such a construction of the law is also helpful in
determining the soundness of the reasoning

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION - CASE DIGEST ATIENZA, V.