PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

EUSEBIO NAZARIO
G.R. No. L-44143 | August 31, 1988
Sarmiento, J.

Doctrine: A statute is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that “men of common
intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.”

FACTS
The present case is an appeal assailing the decision of the trial Court which found the
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Municipal Ordinance No. 4.
Appellant Nazario was charged with various violations of municipal ordinances in
Pagbilao, Quezon Province which mandates that any owner or manager of fishponds should pay a
municipal tax amounting to 3 pesos per hectare after the lapse of 3 years following the approval
of the fishponds by the Bureau of Fisheries.
Initially, the respondent admitted to the said violations but would later argue that such
ordinances were unconstitutional or do not apply to his case on the ground that the assailed
ordinances are vague. He contends that he is a mere lessee of the fish pond hence he is not
contemplated in the does not fall within those who are “owners” or “manager”. He also imputes
such vagueness on the date of payment because while Ordinance 4 provides that parties shall
commence payment 3 years after lapse of 3 years following the approval of the fishpond,
Ordinance 12 states that liability for the tax will begin on 1964 if the fishpond started operating
before said year.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N the assailed ordinances are null and void for being ambiguous? - NO.

It is a well-settled rule that the statute may be vague if it lacks comprehensible

standards as to men of common intelligence would necessarily guess its meaning and differ
to its application. It is said to be repugnant to the Constitution because it violates the due
process for failing to accord the parties of fair notice of what conduct to avoid and because
it grants law makers unbridled discretion in enforcing the statute. But in order to be
declared utterly vague, the assailed statute must not be able to be clarified by a saving
clause of through construction.
In the present case, the Court held that assailed ordinances are not vague and
ambiguous. As an operator of a fish pond, the appellant falls within the term manager. In
fact, he never denied the fact that he financed the construction of the fishponds, introduced
fish fries and had employed laborers to maintain them.
Moreover, there is also no merit to the other contention that Ordinance 12 and 15
are applied retroactively for they are in the nature of curative measures intended to facilitate
the collection Ordinance 4 has prescribed (May 14, 1955).

SERAPIO C2021 | 1