People v. Molina
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The appellant was convicted of vagrancy under Act No. 519. Evidence showed he was discharged from Bilibid Prison in March 1910 after serving a sentence for violating the Opium Law. From then until his prosecution, he had no legal occupation and no apparent means of support, relying on his mother. He is an able-bodied man of 33 years, habitually neglected lawful callings, and spent his time loitering in streets and frequenting cockpits and gambling places. He had prior convictions for violating the Opium Law and playing monte. The accused claimed his mother supported him and he worked on her property, but the evidence indicated his mother had very small means, insufficient to provide work for him. His explanation for money to frequent cockpits was that his mother gave him small sums, and he returned winnings to her. Procedural History: The trial court convicted the defendant of vagrancy and sentenced him to two months' imprisonment and costs. The Petition: The defendant appealed the conviction and sentence.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused, an able-bodied man of 33 years of age, who claims to be supported by his mother and works on her property, but who has no legal occupation and frequents gambling places, can be considered a vagrant under Act No. 519. Whether the claim of living on the charity of his mother rebuts the evidence of having no apparent means of support.
Ruling
The judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court are affirmed, with costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the accused is a vagrant under Act No. 519: The Court affirmed the conviction. The evidence established that the accused was an able-bodied man of 33 years who had no legal occupation after his discharge from prison. He habitually neglected to apply himself to any lawful calling and spent his time loitering in streets and frequenting cockpits and gambling establishments. His prior convictions for violating the Opium Law and playing monte further supported the finding of vagrancy. The Court found that his claim of having no apparent means of support was substantiated by his lifestyle and lack of legitimate employment. On the issue of whether the claim of living on the charity of his mother rebuts the evidence of having no apparent means of support: The Court held that this claim did not rebut the evidence. The accused testified that his mother supported him and that he worked on her property. However, the evidence indicated that his mother possessed very limited means, which were wholly inadequate to furnish even a pretense of work for an able-bodied man. The accused's explanation that his mother gave him small sums for gambling and that he returned winnings to her only served to confirm the Court's opinion that he was an idle, shiftless, and worthless man who made no attempt to follow a legal calling. The Court emphasized that one who makes no pretense to follow a lawful calling, makes no effort to support himself, and spends his time loitering and frequenting gambling places cannot be said to have any apparent, visible, self-evident, or manifest means of support, especially when he has no legal or moral claim upon his mother for support and her limited means would justify the expectation that she would receive assistance from him rather than render assistance to him. The definition of vagrancy, as stated in Gavin vs. The State, consists in general worthlessness, being idle, and though able to work, refusing to do so and living without labor or on the charity of others, which substantially corresponds to the definition in Act No. 519.
Main Doctrine
An able-bodied man of 33 years of age, who has been discharged from prison after serving a sentence for a violation of the Opium Law, and who, from that time until his prosecution for vagrancy, has been engaged in no legal occupation, has no apparent means of support other than that supplied by his mother, habitually neglects to apply himself to any lawful calling, spends his time in loitering about the streets and frequenting cockpits and places where games of various kinds are conducted and where gambling is carried on, and has been previously convicted of violations of the Opium Law and of playing a prohibited gambling game, is considered a vagrant under Act No. 519, as he lacks apparent, visible, self-evident, or manifest means of support.