People Vs Siton

People vs Siton Facts: Evangeline Siton and Krystel Kate Sagarano were charged with vagrancy pursuant to Article 202 (2) of the Revised Penal Code in two separate Informations dated November 18, 2003, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 115,716-C-2003 and 115,717-C-2003 and raffled to Branch 3 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Davao City. The Informations, read: That on or about November 14, 2003, in the City of Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-mentioned accused, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously wandered and loitered around San Pedro and Legaspi Streets, this City, without any visible means to support herself nor lawful and justifiable purpose.1[2] Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code provides: Art. 202. Vagrants and prostitutes; penalty. The following are vagrants: 1. Any person having no apparent means of subsistence, who has the physical ability to work and who neglects to apply himself or herself to some lawful calling; 2. Any person found loitering about public or semi-public buildings or places or tramping or wandering about the country or the streets without visible means of support; 3. Any idle or dissolute person who lodges in houses of ill fame; ruffians or pimps and those who habitually associate with prostitutes; 4. Any person who, not being included in the provisions of other articles of this Code, shall be found loitering in any inhabited or uninhabited place belonging to another without any lawful or justifiable purpose; 5.

Prostitutes.

For the purposes of this article, women who, for money or profit, habitually indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be prostitutes. Any person found guilty of any of the offenses covered by this articles shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, and in case of recidivism, by arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court. Instead of submitting their counter-affidavits as directed, respondents filed separate Motions to Quash2[3] on the ground that Article 202 (2) is unconstitutional for being vague and overbroad. In an Order3[4] dated April 28, 2004, the municipal trial court denied the motions and directed respondents anew to file their respective counter-affidavits. The municipal trial court also declared that the law

on vagrancy was enacted pursuant to the States police power and justified by the Latin maxim salus populi est suprem(a) lex, which calls for the subordination of individual benefit to the interest of the greater number, thus:

Our law on vagrancy was enacted pursuant to the police power of the State. An authority on police power, Professor Freund describes laconically police power as the power of promoting public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property. (Citations omitted). In fact the persons acts and acquisitions are hemmed in by the police power of the state. The justification found in the Latin maxim, salus populi est supreme (sic) lex (the god of the people is the Supreme Law). This calls for the subordination of individual benefit to the interests of the greater number.In the case at bar the affidavit of the arresting police officer, SPO1 JAY PLAZA with Annex A lucidly shows that there was a prior surveillance conducted in view of the reports that vagrants and prostitutes proliferate in the place where the two accused (among other women) were wandering and in the wee hours of night and soliciting male customer. Thus, on that basis the prosecution should be given a leeway to prove its case. Thus, in the interest of substantial justice, both prosecution and defense must be given their day in Court: the prosecution proof of the crime, and the author thereof; the defense, to show that the acts of the accused in the indictment cant be categorized as a crime.4[5]

The municipal trial court also noted that in the affidavit of the arresting police officer, SPO1 Jay Plaza, it was stated that there was a prior surveillance conducted on the two accused in an area reported to be frequented by vagrants and prostitutes who solicited sexual favors. Hence, the prosecution should be given the opportunity to prove the crime, and the defense to rebut the evidence.

Respondents thus filed an original petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Regional Trial Court of Davao City,5[6] directly challenging the constitutionality of the anti-vagrancy law, claiming that the definition of the crime of vagrancy under Article 202 (2), apart from being vague, results as well in an arbitrary identification of violators, since the definition of the crime includes in its coverage persons who are otherwise performing ordinary peaceful acts. They likewise claimed that Article 202 (2) violated the equal protection clause under the Constitution because it discriminates against the poor and unemployed, thus permitting an arbitrary and unreasonable classification.

The State, through the Office of the Solicitor General, argued that pursuant to the Courts ruling in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan,6[7] the overbreadth and vagueness doctrines apply only to free speech cases and not to penal statutes. It also asserted that Article 202 (2) must be presumed valid and constitutional, since the respondents failed to overcome this presumption.

On July 29, 2005, the Regional Trial Court issued the assailed Order granting the petition, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, PRESCINDING FROM THE FOREGOING, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED. Paragraph 2 of Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code is hereby declared unconstitutional and the Order of the court a quo, dated April 28, 2004, denying the petitioners Motion to Quash is set aside and the said court is ordered to dismiss the subject criminal cases against the petitioners pending before it.

SO ORDERED.7[8]

In declaring Article 202 (2) unconstitutional, the trial court opined that the law is vague and it violated the equal protection clause. It held that the void for vagueness doctrine is equally applicable in testing the validity of penal statutes. Citing Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville,8[9] where an anti vagrancy ordinance was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States, the trial court ruled:

Loitering about and wandering have become national pastimes particularly in these times of recession when there are many who are without visible means of support not by reason of choice but by force of circumstance as borne out by the high unemployment rate in the entire country.

To authorize law enforcement authorities to arrest someone for nearly no other reason than the fact that he cannot find gainful employment would indeed be adding insult to injury.9[10]

On its pronouncement that Article 202 (2) violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution, the trial court declared:

The application of the Anti-Vagrancy Law, crafted in the 1930s, to our situation at present runs afoul of the equal protection clause of the constitution as it offers no reasonable classification between those covered by the law and those who are not.

Class legislation is such legislation which denies rights to one which are accorded to others, or inflicts upon one individual a more severe penalty than is imposed upon another in like case offending.

Applying this to the case at bar, since the definition of Vagrancy under Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code offers no guidelines or any other reasonable indicators to differentiate those who have no visible means of support by force of circumstance and those who choose to loiter about and bum around, who are the proper subjects of vagrancy legislation, it cannot pass a judicial scrutiny of its constitutionality. 10[11]

Hence, this petition for review on certiorari raising the sole issue of: WHETHER THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN DECLARING UNCONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLE 202 (2) OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE11[12]

Petitioner argues that every statute is presumed valid and all reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of its constitutionality; that, citing Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan,12[13] the overbreadth and vagueness doctrines have special application to free-speech cases only and are not appropriate for testing the validity of penal statutes; that respondents failed to overcome the presumed validity of the statute, failing to prove that it was vague under the standards set out by the Courts; and that the State may regulate individual conduct for the promotion of public welfare in the exercise of its police power.

On the other hand, respondents argue against the limited application of the overbreadth and vagueness doctrines. They insist that Article 202 (2) on its face violates the constitutionally-guaranteed rights to due process and the equal protection of the laws; that the due process vagueness standard, as distinguished from the free speech vagueness doctrine, is adequate to declare Article 202 (2) unconstitutional and void on its face; and that the presumption of constitutionality was adequately overthrown.

Ruling: The Court finds for petitioner. The power to define crimes and prescribe their corresponding penalties is legislative in nature and inherent in the sovereign power of the state to maintain social order as an aspect of police power. The legislature may even forbid and penalize acts formerly considered innocent and lawful provided that no constitutional rights have been abridged.13[14] However, in exercising its power to declare what acts constitute a crime, the legislature must inform the citizen with reasonable precision what acts it intends to prohibit so that he may have a certain understandable rule of conduct and know what acts it is his duty to avoid. 14[15] This requirement has come to be known as the void-for-vagueness doctrine which states that a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law.15[16] the assailed provision is paragraph (2), which defines a vagrant as any person found loitering about public or semi-public buildings or places, or tramping or wandering about the country or the streets without visible means of support. This provision was based on the second clause of Section 1 of Act No. 519 which defined vagrant as every person found loitering about saloons or dramshops or gambling houses, or tramping or straying through the country without visible means of support. The second clause was essentially retained with the modification that the places under which the offense might be committed is now expressed in general terms public or semi-public places. Since the Revised Penal Code took effect in 1932, no challenge has ever been made upon the constitutionality of Article 202 except now. Instead, throughout the years, we have witnessed the streets and parks become dangerous and unsafe, a haven for beggars, harassing watch-your-car boys, petty thieves and robbers, pickpockets, swindlers, gangs, prostitutes, and individuals performing acts that go beyond decency and morality, if not basic humanity. The streets and parks have become the training ground for petty offenders who graduate into hardened and battle-scarred criminals. Everyday, the news is rife with reports of innocent and hardworking people being robbed, swindled, harassed or mauled if not killed by the scourge of the streets. Blue collar workers are robbed straight from withdrawing hard-earned money from the ATMs (automated teller machines); students are held up for having to use and thus exhibit publicly their mobile phones; frail and helpless men are mauled by thrill-seeking gangs; innocent passers-by are stabbed to death by rowdy drunken men walking the streets; fair-looking or pretty women are stalked and harassed, if not abducted, raped and then killed; robbers, thieves, pickpockets and snatchers case streets and parks for possible victims; the old are swindled of their life savings by conniving streetsmart bilkers and con artists on the prowl; beggars endlessly pester and panhandle pedestrians and commuters, posing a health threat and putting law-abiding drivers and citizens at risk of running them over. All these happen on the streets and in public places, day or night.

The streets must be protected. Our people should never dread having to ply them each day, or else we can never say that we have performed our task to our brothers and sisters. We must rid the streets of the scourge of humanity, and restore order, peace, civility, decency and morality in them.

This is exactly why we have public order laws, to which Article 202 (2) belongs. These laws were crafted to maintain minimum standards of decency, morality and civility in human society. These laws may be traced all the way back to ancient times, and today, they have also come to be associated with the struggle to improve the citizens quality of life, which is guaranteed by our Constitution.16[28] Civilly, they are covered by the abuse of rights doctrine embodied in the preliminary articles of the Civil Code concerning Human Relations, to the end, in part, that any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.17[29] This provision is, together with the succeeding articles on human relations, intended to embody certain basic principles that are to be observed for the rightful relationship between human beings and for the stability of the social order.18[30]

In civil law, for example, the summary remedy of ejectment is intended to prevent criminal disorder and breaches of the peace and to discourage those who, believing themselves entitled to the possession of the property, resort to force rather than to some appropriate action in court to assert their claims.19[31] Any private person may abate a public nuisance which is specially injurious to him by removing, or if necessary, by destroying the thing which constitutes the same, without committing a breach of the peace, or doing unnecessary injury.20[32]

Criminally, public order laws encompass a whole range of acts from public indecencies and immoralities, to public nuisances, to disorderly conduct. The acts punished are made illegal by their offensiveness to societys basic sensibilities and their adverse effect on the quality of life of the people of society. For example, the issuance or making of a bouncing check is deemed a public nuisance, a crime against public order that must be abated.21[33] As a matter of public policy, the failure to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods covered by a trust receipt or to return said goods, if not sold, is a public nuisance to be abated by the imposition of penal sanctions.22[34] Thus, public nuisances must be abated because they have the effect of interfering with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by members of a community.

Article 202 (2) does not violate the equal protection clause; neither does it discriminate against the poor and the unemployed. Offenders of public order laws are punished not for their status, as for being poor or unemployed, but for conducting themselves under such circumstances as to endanger the public peace or cause alarm and apprehension in the community. Being poor or unemployed is not a license or a justification to act indecently or to engage in immoral conduct.

Vagrancy must not be so lightly treated as to be considered constitutionally offensive. It is a public order crime which punishes persons for conducting themselves, at a certain place and time which orderly society finds unusual, under such conditions that are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society, as would engender a justifiable concern for the safety and well-being of members of the community.

Instead of taking an active position declaring public order laws unconstitutional, the State should train its eye on their effective implementation, because it is in this area that the Court perceives difficulties. Red light districts abound, gangs work the streets in the wee hours of the morning, dangerous robbers and thieves ply their trade in the trains stations, drunken men terrorize law-abiding citizens late at night and urinate on otherwise decent corners of our streets. Rugby-sniffing individuals crowd our national parks and busy intersections. Prostitutes wait for customers by the roadside all around the metropolis, some even venture in bars and restaurants. Drug-crazed men loiter around dark avenues waiting to pounce on helpless citizens. Dangerous groups wander around, casing homes and establishments for their next hit. The streets must be made safe once more. Though a mans house is his castle,23[35] outside on the streets, the king is fair game.

The dangerous streets must surrender to orderly society.

Finally, we agree with the position of the State that first and foremost, Article 202 (2) should be presumed valid and constitutional. When confronted with a constitutional question, it is elementary that every court must approach it with grave care and considerable caution bearing in mind that every statute is presumed valid and every reasonable doubt should be resolved in favor of its constitutionality. 24[36] The policy of our courts is to avoid ruling on constitutional questions and to presume that the acts of the political departments are valid in the absence of a clear and unmistakable showing to the contrary. To doubt is to sustain, this presumption is based on the doctrine of separation of powers which enjoins upon each department a becoming respect for the acts of the other departments. The theory is that as the joint act of Congress and the

President of the Philippines, a law has been carefully studied, crafted and determined to be in accordance with the fundamental law before it was finally enacted.25[37]

It must not be forgotten that police power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty. It has been defined as the power vested by the Constitution in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the Constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and for the subjects of the same. The power is plenary and its scope is vast and pervasive, reaching and justifying measures for public health, public safety, public morals, and the general welfare.26[38] As an obvious police power measure, Article 202 (2) must therefore be viewed in a constitutional light.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of Branch 11 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City in Special Civil Case No. 30-500-2004 declaring Article 202, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code UNCONSTITUTIONAL is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Republic Act No. 9995 AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE CRIME OF PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYEURISM, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representative of the Philippines in Congress assembled: Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009". Section 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State values the dignity and privacy of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights. Toward this end, the State shall penalize acts that would destroy the honor, dignity and integrity of a person. Section 3. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of this Act, the term: (a) "Broadcast" means to make public, by any means, a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons. (b) "Capture" with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by any means, or broadcast. (c) "Female breast" means any portion of the female breast. (d) "Photo or video voyeurism" means the act of taking photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or any similar activity or of capturing an image of the private area of a person or persons without the latter's consent, under circumstances in which such person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy, or the act of selling, copying, reproducing, broadcasting, sharing,

showing or exhibiting the photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and similar means or device without the written consent of the person/s involved, notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video coverage of same was given by such person's. (e) "Private area of a person" means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area, buttocks or female breast of an individual. (f) "Under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy" means believe that he/she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image or a private area of the person was being captured; or circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a private area of the person would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place. Section 4. Prohibited Acts. - It is hereby prohibited and declared unlawful for any person: (a) To take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or any similar activity or to capture an image of the private area of a person/s such as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area, buttocks or female breast without the consent of the person/s involved and under circumstances in which the person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy; (b) To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or reproduced, such photo or video or recording of sexual act or any similar activity with or without consideration; (c) To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or distributed, such photo or video or recording of sexual act, whether it be the original copy or reproduction thereof; or (d) To publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or broadcast, whether in print or broadcast media, or show or exhibit the photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or any similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and other similar means or device. The prohibition under paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) shall apply notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video coverage of the same was given by such person/s. Any person who violates this provision shall be liable for photo or video voyeurism as defined herein. Section 5. Penalties. - The penalty of imprisonment of not less that three (3) years but not more than seven (7) years and a fine of not less than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) but not more than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), or both, at the discretion of the court shall be imposed upon any person found guilty of violating Section 4 of this Act. If the violator is a juridical person, its license or franchise shall be automatically be deemed revoked and the persons liable shall be the officers thereof including the editor and reporter in the case of print media, and the station manager, editor and broadcaster in the case of a broadcast media. If the offender is a public officer or employee, or a professional, he/she shall be administratively liable. If the offender is an alien, he/she shall be subject to deportation proceedings after serving his/her sentence and payment of fines. Section 6. Exemption. - Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall render it unlawful or punishable for any peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of the court, to use the record or any copy thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of the crime of photo or video voyeurism: Provided, That such written order shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he/she may produce, and upon showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that photo or video voyeurism has been committed or is about to be committed, and that the evidence to be obtained is essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution or prevention of such, crime.

Section 7. Inadmissibility of Evidence. - Any record, photo or video, or copy thereof, obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.1avvphi1 Section 8. Separability Clause. - If any provision or part hereof is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions not affected thereby shall remain valid and subsisting. Section 9. Repealing Clause. - Any law, presidential decree or issuance, executive order, letter of instruction , administrative order, rule or regulation contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act is hereby repealed, modified or amended accordingly. Section 10. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in the Official Gazette or in two(2) newspapers of general circulation. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10158

March 27, 2012

AN ACT DECRIMINALIZING VAGRANCY, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE ARTICLE 202 OF ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled: Section 1. Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code is hereby, amended to read as follows: "Article 202. Prostitutes; Penalty. – For the purposes of this article, women who, for money or profit, habitually indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be prostitutes. "Any person found guilty of any of the offenses covered by this article shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, and in case of recidivism, by arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correctional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court." Section 2. Effect on Pending Cases. – All pending cases under the provisions of Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code on Vagrancy prior to its amendment by this Act shall be dismissed upon effectivity of this Act. Section 3. Immediate Release of Convicted Persons. – All persons serving sentence for violation of the provisions of Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code on Vagrancy prior to its amendment by this Act shall be immediately released upon effectivity of this Act: Provided, That they are not serving sentence or detained for any other offense or felony. Section 4. Repealing Clause. – All laws, presidential decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations and other issuances, or any part thereof, inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed, modified or amended accordingly. Section 5. Effectivity Clause. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1563 ESTABLISHING AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM FOR THE CONTROL AND ERADICATION OF MENDICANCY, PROVIDING PENALTIES, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES WHEREAS, the promotion of social justice and protection of life, property and dignity of the citizenry in endangered by rampant mendicancy; WHEREAS, mendicancy breeds crime, creates traffic hazards, endangers health, and exposes mendicants to indignities and degradation; and WHEREAS, there is an immediate need to provide appropriate services to enable mendicants to meet their basic needs and develop self-reliance;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree: Section 1. Title And Scope Of The Decree. This Decree shall be known as the Mendicancy Law of 1978. It shall apply to all mendicants, and exploited infants or children who are 8 years old and below, minors found begging and covered by Presidential Decree No. 603 and parents of exploited infants and children criminally liable under Article 59 and 60 of Presidential Decree No. 603. Section 2. Purpose. This Decree shall be interpreted so as to, among others: a. Prevent the commission of mendicancy; b. Prevent the exploitation of infants and children through mendicancy and provide habilitative services for those already exploited or in immediate danger of exploitation; and c. Promote the rehabilitation of minors found begging and mendicants by providing an integrated developmental package of preventive, habilitative interceptive, remedial, and/or rehabilitative services. Section 3. Definition Of Terms. As used in this Decree, the following shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed thus: a. "Mendicant" refers to any person, except those enumerated in Section 4 of this Decree, who has no visible and legal means of support, or lawful employment and who is physically able to work but neglects to apply himself to some lawful calling and instead uses begging as a means of living. b. "Exploited Infant" or "Child" refers to an infant or child 8 years and below who is used in begging or one who accompanies a habitual vagrant or beggar. c "Habitual Mendicant" refers to one who has been convicted of mendicancy under this Decree two or more times. d. "Duly Licensed Child Placement Agency" or "Individual" is an institution or person licensed by the Department of Social Services and Development to assume the care, custody, protection and maintenance of children for placement in any child-caring institution or home under the care and custody of any person for purposes of adoption, guardianship or foster care. e. Integrated Developmental Package of Services include the following: 1. Preventive services to measures that forestall the occurrence of situations identified as contributory to mendicancy; 2. Habilitative services refer to measures which provide environmental or socio-economic conditions for the exploited infant or child which maximize possibilities and opportunities for the enjoyment of satisfactory equality of life before the formation of undesirable attitudes and values or the onset of conditions most conducive to mendicancy; 3. Interceptive services are measures which channel or direct the growth potential and productive energy of the mendicant infant, child, youth or adult to offset the effect of factors contributing to mendicancy; 4. Remedial services refer to measures intended to meet the basic needs and improve living condition of the mendicant; and 5. Rehabilitative services refer to medical, social, educational, psychological and vocational measures to develop and/or restore the mendicant to the fullest state of well-being or economic usefulness of which he is capable, and to engage in a gainful occupation.

Section 4. Apprehension Of And Services For Persons Found Begging. Any infants or child 8 years old and below who is found begging or is being utilized by a mendicant for purposes of begging shall be apprehended as a neglected child under Article 141 of PD 603 and shall be committed to the custody and care of the Department of Social Services and Development or to any duly licensed child placement agency or individual. Any minor over 9 years of age under 15 found begging or is being utilized for purposes of begging and who acted without discernment shall be apprehended as a neglected child under Article 141 of Presidential Decree No. 603 and shall be committed to the custody and care of the Department of Social Services and Development or to any duly licensed placement agency or individual. Any minor over 9 years of age and under 15 who is found begging or is being utilized for the purpose of begging and who acted with discernment shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 3, Title VIII of Presidential Decree No. 603. Any person not otherwise covered in the preceding paragraph of this Section who is found begging and who is physically or mentally incapable of gainful occupation shall be provided the integrated package of services by the Department of Social Services and Development, the Welfare units of local governments and other cooperating agencies. Section 5. Criminal Liability. A mendicant as defined in Paragraph (a) Section 3 hereof, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine not exceeding P500.00 or by imprisonment for a period not exceeding 2 years or both at the discretion of the court. A habitual mendicant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding P1,000.00 or by imprisonment for a period not exceeding 4 years or both at the discretion of the court. Parents of exploited infants or minors under Section 4 of this Decree shall be proceeded against in accordance with Articles 59 and 60 of Presidential Decree No. 603, unless they are themselves mendicants. Any person who abets mendicancy by giving alms directly to mendicants, exploited infants and minors on public roads, sidewalks, parks and bridges shall be punished by a fine nor exceeding P20.00. Section 6. Information Program. The Department of Public Information shall conduct a nationwide educational and information program on the Mendicancy Law and educate the public to contribute only to lawful fund raising projects and prevent the community in giving alms except through organized agencies, subject to such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Department of Public Information may promulgate. Section 7. Local Programs And Facilities. Local governments shall provide socio-economic programs and establish operating units including reception and action centers, sheltered workshops, constitute homes and other facilities for mendicants, subject to such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Department of Local Government and Community Development may promulgate. Section 8. Health Needs. The Department of Health shall provide the necessary measures in meeting the health needs of mendicants, subject to such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Department of Health may promulgate. Section 9. Law Enforcement. The Department of National Defense shall provide the necessary law enforcement and other related services for the implementation of this Decree, subject to such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Department of National Defense may promulgate. Section 10. Integrated Network Of Services. The Department of Social Services and Development shall provide an integrated network of appropriate services to exploited infants and children 8 years old and below as well as mendicant minors and adult mendicants and shall coordinate the services related to the implementation of this Decree, subject to such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Department of Social Services and Development may promulgate. Section 11. Appropriations. The sum of two million pesos (P2,000,000) is hereby authorized to be appropriated out of any funds in the National Treasury that are not otherwise appropriated, in order to support the activities under this Decree.

Section 12. Repealing Clause. All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations which are inconsistent with this Decree are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. Section 13. Separability Of Provisions. If for any reason any section of provision of this Decree is declared unconstitutional or invalid, the other sections or provisions thereof which are not affected thereby shall continue in full force and effect. Section 14. Effectivity. This Decree shall take effect immediately.