ZACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO, ET AL., V. JUSTO LUKBAN, ET AL.

,
G.R. No. L-14639 , March 25, 1919
MALCOLM, J.:

FACTS:
The Mayor of the city of Manila, Justo Lukban, ordered the segregated district for women of ill
repute, which had been permitted for a number of years in the city of Manila, closed. Between
October 16 and October 25, 1918, the women were kept confined to their houses in the district
by the police. Allegedly, about midnight of October 25, the police, under the command of Anton
Hohmann, the Manila Chief of Police, hustled some 170 inmates into patrol wagons, and placed
them aboard the steamers that awaited their arrival. The women were sent out of Manila without
their consent and with no knowledge that they were destined for a life in Mindanao.The two
steamers with their unwilling passengers sailed for Davao during the night of October 25 and
arrived on October 29, 1918. The women were accepted by Feliciano Yñigo, a haciendero and
the Provincial Governor of Davao, Francisco Sales and Rafael Castillo. However, similar to the
women transported from Manila to Davao, Feliciano Yñigo and Francisco Sales also had no idea
that Mayor Lukban would send them prostitutes.

The relatives and friends of deported women presented an application for habeas corpus to a
member of the Supreme Court. The application alleged that the women were illegally restrained
of their liberty by the Mayor of Manila, the Chief of Police of Manila, and other unknown
parties. The city fiscal admitted that the women had been sent out of Manila without their
consent, but argued that the petition should be dismissed because the petitioners were not proper
parties, the action should have been filed in Davao, and the respondents did not have the women
under their custody or control. On December 2, 1918, the Supreme Court granted the writ of
habeas corpus and ordered the respondents to bring the women before the court. However, none
of the women were produced. The respondents also argued that it was not possible to bring the
women back because they were no longer under their control. The Supreme Court was not
satisfied with the respondents' explanations and issued a second order on December 10, 1918.
This order directed the respondents to bring the women back to Manila by January 13, 1919,
unless the women had renounced their right to return in writing.

ISSUES:
Whether or not Mayor Lukban's act of deporting prostitutes from Manila to Davao in order to
eradicate vice in the city lawful?

RULING:
No, although Mayor Lukban intention to suppress the social evil was commendable, his action
was unlawful. It is worth mentioning the ethical principle: "The end does not justify the means."
No matter how noble and worthy of admiration the purpose of an act, but if the means to be
employed in accomplishing is sunconstitutional, then it cannot still be allowed. In addition,
Philippine penal law specifically punishes any public officer who, not being expressly authorized
by law or regulation, compels any person to change his residence. As to criminal responsibility, it
is true that the Penal Code in force in these Islands provides: Any public officer not thereunto
expressly authorized by law or by regulation of a general character in force in the Philippines
who shall compel any person to change his domicile or residence shall suffer the penalty of
destierro and a fine of not less than six hundred and twenty-five and not more than six thousand
two hundred and fifty pesetas.