Title
People vs. Beltran y Angeles
Case
G.R. No. L-11797
Decision Date
Apr 27, 1960
Eleuterio Beltran acquitted of jaywalking charge; Supreme Court ruled crossing Magallanes Street outside pedestrian lane not unlawful under Manila Traffic Code.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-11797)

Charges and Proceedings

Eleuterio Beltran y Angeles faced charges in the Municipal Court of Manila for violating Rule IX, paragraph 2 of Ordinance No. 2646, which pertains to pedestrian traffic regulations, specifically jaywalking. The information filed against him alleged that he unlawfully crossed a street outside of designated pedestrian lanes at the southern approach of Jones Bridge. On trial, the Municipal Court found him guilty and imposed a fine of P15, along with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Beltran subsequently appealed the ruling to the Court of First Instance of Manila, where he maintained a plea of not guilty.

Trial Court's Findings

During the proceedings in the Court of First Instance, the trial court highlighted that on the day of the incident, Beltran crossed Magallanes Street at approximately 6 PM, moving from the southern approach of the Jones Bridge to Island No. 2 on a path not marked as a pedestrian lane. The absence of sign-posts in the vicinity of the crossing was acknowledged. Crucially, there was a properly marked pedestrian lane located nearby from the defined stopping point in front of the Post Office, yet the lane was not directly adjacent to Beltran’s path when he crossed.

Applicable Ordinance Provisions

The relevant provisions of Municipal Ordinance No. 2646 provided guidelines for pedestrian safety and crossing conduct. Rule IX, paragraph 2 mandates that pedestrians should cross streets at right angles and at points designated by city authorities for their safety. Furthermore, paragraph 3 outlines unlawful crossing in certain marked streets, specifically mentioning various areas within Manila where pedestrians should adhere to safety zones. It also states that until safety zones are properly marked, no prosecutions could be initiated for violations of these rules.

Court's Conclusion and Rationale

Upon review of the case, the higher court determined that the location where Beltran crossed Magallanes Street was not included among those streets listed in the first part of paragraph 3 of the Ordinance. Notably, a marked safety zone existed 45 to 75 meters away from where he crossed, which plays a significant role in the court's rationale. Given the legality of crossing at right angles as provided

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.