Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > September 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. 4349 September 24, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANICETO BARRIAS

011 Phil 327:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 4349. September 24, 1908. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANICETO BARRIAS, Defendant-Appellant.

Ortigas & Fisher for Appellant.

Attorney-General Araneta for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. HARBOR RULES. — Rules for local navigation prescribed by the collector of a port as harbor master pursuant to statutory authority may be sustained as not an undue exercise of a delegated legislative power.

2. ID. — A rule for prohibiting the moving of heavily laden boats in the Pasig River otherwise than by steam or other adequate power is valid when the statute declares the violation of the rule a misdemeanor.

3. ID.; PENALTY. — Quare as to a statute which authorizes the collector to make a rule not only particularizing the offensive acts but also declaring the penalties for its violation.

4. DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER. — The fixing of penalties for criminal offenses is the exercise of a legislative power which can not be delegated to a subordinate authority.


D E C I S I O N


TRACEY, J. :


In the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila the defendant was charged with a violation of paragraphs 70 and 83 of Circular No. 397 of the Insular Collector of Customs, duly published in the Official Gazette and approved by the Secretary of Finance and Justice. After a demurrer to the complaint was overruled, it was proved that, being the captain of the lighter Maude, he was moving her and directing her movement, when heavily laden, in the Pasig River, by bamboo poles in the hands of the crew, and without steam, sail, or any other external power. Paragraph 70 of Circular No. 397 reads as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘ "No heavily loaded casco, lighter, or other similar craft shall be permitted to move in the Pasig River without being towed by steam or moved by other adequate power."cralaw virtua1aw library

Paragraph 83 reads, in part, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"For the violation of any of the foregoing regulations, the person offending shall be liable to a fine of not less than P5 and not more than P500, in the discretion of the court."cralaw virtua1aw library

In this court, counsel for the appellant attacked the validity of paragraph 70 on two grounds: First, that it is unauthorized by section 19 of Act No. 355; and, second, that if the Acts of the Philippine Commission bear the interpretation of authorizing the Collector to promulgate such a law, they are void, as constituting an illegal delegation of legislative power.

The Attorney-General does not seek to sustain the conviction but joins with the counsel for the defense in asking for the discharge of the prisoner on the first ground stated by the defense, that the rule of the Collector cited was unauthorized and illegal, expressly passing over the other question of the delegation of legislative power.

After argument of the case, this court received a memorandum submitted by the Collector in his own behalf, which has been served on the counsel appearing in the case, with permission to reply.

By sections 1, 2, and 3 of Act No. 1136, passed April 29, 1904, the Collector of Customs is authorized to license craft engaged in the lighterage or other exclusively harbor business of the ports of the Islands, and, with certain exceptions, all vessels engaged in lightering are required to be so licensed. Sections 5 and 8 read as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 5. The Collector of Customs for the Philippine Islands is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to promptly make and publish suitable rules and regulations to carry this law into effect and to regulate the business herein licensed.

"SEC. 8. Any person who shall violate the provisions of this Act, or of any rule or regulation made and issued by the Collector of Customs for the Philippine Islands, under and by authority of this Act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars, United States currency, or by both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court: Provided, That violations of law may be punished either by the method prescribed in section seven hereof, or by that prescribed in this section, or by both."cralaw virtua1aw library

Under this statute, which was not referred to on the argument, or in the original briefs, there is no difficulty in sustaining the regulation of the Collector as coming within the terms of section 5. Lighterage, mentioned in the Act, is the very business in which this vessel was engaged, and when heavily laden with hemp she was navigating the Pasig River below the Bridge of Spain, in the city of Manila. This spot is near the mouth of the river, the docks whereof are used for the purpose of taking on and discharging freight, and we entertain no doubt that it was in a right sense a part of the harbor, without having recourse to the definition of paragraph 8 of Customs Administrative Circular No. 136, which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The limits of a harbor for the purpose of licensing vessels as herein prescribed (for the lighterage and harbor business) shall be considered to include its confluent navigable rivers and lakes, which are navigable during any season of the year."cralaw virtua1aw library

The necessity of confiding to some local authority the framing, changing, and enforcing of harbor regulations is. recognized throughout the world, as each region and each harbor requires peculiar rules more minute than could be enacted by the central lawmaking power, and which, when kept within their proper scope, are in their nature police regulations not involving an undue grant of legislative power.

The complaint in this instance was framed with reference, as its authority, to sections 311 and 319 [19 and 311] of Act No. 355, of the Philippine Customs Administrative Act, as amended by Acts Nos. 1235 and 1480. Under Act No. 1235, the Collector is not only empowered to make suitable regulations, but also to "fix penalties for violation thereof," not exceeding a fine of P500. This provision of the statute does, indeed, present a serious question.

"One of the settled maxims in constitutional law is, that the power conferred upon the legislature to make laws can not be delegated by that department to any other body or authority. Where the sovereign power of the State has located the authority, there it must remain; and by the constitutional agency alone the laws must be made until the constitution itself is changed. The power to whose judgment, wisdom, and patriotism this high prerogative has been intrusted can not relieve itself of the responsibility by choosing other agencies upon which the power shall be developed, nor can it substitute the judgment, wisdom, and patriotism of any other body for those to which alone the people have seen fit to confide this sovereign trust." (Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, 6th ed., p. 137.)

This doctrine is based on the ethical principle that such a delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate by the instrumentality of his own judgment acting immediately upon the matter of legislation and not through the intervening mind of another. In the case of the United States v. Breen (40 Fed. Rep., 402), an Act of Congress allowing the Secretary of War to make such rules and regulations as might be necessary to protect improvements of the Mississippi River, and providing that a violation thereof should constitute a misdemeanor, was sustained on the ground that the misdemeanor was declared not under the delegated power of the Secretary of War, but in the Act of Congress, itself. So also was a grant to him of power to prescribe rules for the use of canals. (U. S. v. Ormsbee, 74 Fed. Rep., 207.) But a law authorizing him to require alterations of any bridge and to impose penalties for violations of his rules we held invalid, as vesting in him a power exclusively lodged in Congress. (U. S. v. Rider, 50 Fed. Rep., 406.) The subject is considered and some cases reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States, in re Kollock (165 U. S., 526), which upheld the law authorizing a commissioner of internal revenue to designate marks and stamps on oleomargarine packages, an improper use of which should thereafter constitute a crime or misdemeanor, the court saying (p. 533):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The criminal offense is fully and completely defined by the Act and the designation by the Commissioner of the particular marks and brands to be used was a mere matter of detail. The regulation was in execution of, or supplementary to, but not in conflict with, the law itself. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

In Massachusetts it has been decided that the legislature may delegate to the governor and council the power to make pilot regulations. (Martin v. Witherspoon Et. Al., 135 Mass., 175.)

In the case of The Board of Harbor Commissioners of the Port of Eureka v. Excelsior Redwood Company (88 Cal., 491), it was ruled that harbor commissioners can not impose a penalty under statutes authorizing them to do so, the court saying:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Conceding that the legislature could delegate to the plaintiff the authority to make rules and regulations with reference to the navigation of Humboldt Bay, the penalty for the violation of such rules and regulations is a matter purely in the hands of the legislature."cralaw virtua1aw library

Having reached the conclusion that Act No. 1136 is valid, so far as sections 5 and 8 are concerned, and is sufficient to sustain this prosecution, it is unnecessary that we should pass on the questions discussed in the briefs as to the extent and validity of the other acts. The reference to them in the complaint is not material, as we have frequently held that where an offense is correctly described in the complaint an additional reference to a wrong statute is immaterial.

We are also of the opinion that none of the subsequent statutes cited operate to repeal the aforesaid section of Act No. 1136.

So much of the judgment of the Court of First Instance as convicts the defendant of a violation of Acts Nos. 355 and 1235 is hereby revoked, and he is hereby convicted of a misdemeanor and punished by a fine of 25 dollars, with costs of both instances. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa and Willard, JJ., concur.

Carson, J., I reserve my opinion.

Endnotes:



1. 4 Off. Gaz., 200.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1908 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 4379 September 1, 1908 - VICENTE GUASH v. JUANA ESPIRITU

    011 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. 4672 September 1, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO MANANGAN, ET AL.

    011 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. 4094 September 3, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MORO MATANUG

    011 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. 4367 September 3, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SALVADOR VALLEJO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 193

  • G.R. No. 4444 September 3, 1908 - SALIH ADAD v. JAMES CRAIG TOW, ET AL.

    011 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. 4528 September 4, 1908 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. AMERICAN SURETY CO. OF NEW YORK, ET AL.

    011 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. 3869 September 7, 1908 - ALEJANDRO AGONOY, ET AL. v. ESTANISLAO RUIZ, ET AL.

    011 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. 3945 September 7, 1908 - JOSE Y. LOPEZ v. IGNACIO MENDEZONA, ET AL.

    011 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 4134 September 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LUCAS CANLEON

    011 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. 4414 September 7, 1908 - CHUA CHIENCO v. ANGEL VARGAS

    011 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. 4486 September 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ALFREDO REYES, ET AL.

    011 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. 4487 September 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ALFONSO MELEGRITO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 229

  • G.R. No. 4558 September 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO LORIA

    011 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 4580 September 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO FONTANILLA

    011 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. 4638 September 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELINO AQUINO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. 4683 September 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE KERR

    011 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 4919 September 7, 1908 - IN RE: JOSEPH J. CAPURRO

    011 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. 4500 September 8, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO AQUINO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. 4585 September 8, 1908 - LEOCADIO JOAQUIN v. LAMBERTO AVELLANA

    011 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 4395 September 9, 1908 - BEHN, MEYER & CO. v. EL BANCO ESPAÑOL-FILIPINO

    011 Phil 253

  • G.R. No. 4465 September 10, 1908 - MARCELA ALVARAN v. BERNARDO MARQUEZ

    011 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 4613 September 10, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. INOCENCIO LAT

    011 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 4073 September 12, 1908 - TAN CONG v. M. L. STEWART

    011 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. 4536 September 17, 1908 - BEHN, MEYER & CO. v. J. MC MICKING, ET AL.

    011 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. 4588 September 17, 1908 - EASTERN EXTENSION AUSTRALASIA, ET AL v. JOHN S. HORD

    011 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. 4640 September 17, 1908 - CLARA MARCELO v. EL CHINO VELASCO

    011 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 4685 September 17, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ENG-JUA, ET AL.

    011 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. 3763 September 18, 1908 - RAMON N. OROZCO v. JUAN XAVIER

    011 Phil 295

  • G.R. No. 3868 September 18, 1908 - FRANCISCO MARTINEZ v. PEDRO MARTINEZ

    011 Phil 298

  • G.R. No. 4021 September 18, 1908 - FRANCISCO ROSCO, ET AL. v. MARIANO REBUENO

    011 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. 4764 September 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS MOLINA, ET AL.

    011 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 4031 September 22, 1908 - ARCADIO REMIGIO v. FAUSTO RIGATA

    011 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. 4701 September 22, 1908 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH, ET AL. v. ISABEL FAMILIAR, ET AL.

    011 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 4741 September 22, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDORO MATA

    011 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. 3490 September 23, 1908 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH v. MUN. OF PLACER

    011 Phil 315

  • G.R. No. 4323 September 23, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. DOROTEO PARCON

    011 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 4349 September 24, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANICETO BARRIAS

    011 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. 4359 September 24, 1908 - EMILIO B. ESCUIN v. FRANCISCO ESCUIN, ET AL.

    011 Phil 332

  • G.R. No. 1435 September 28, 1908 - G. S. WEIGALL v. W. MORGAN SHUSTER

    011 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. 4003 September 29, 1908 - FELICIANO RUPEREZ v. BUENAVENTURA DIMAGUILA, ET AL.

    011 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. 4401 September 29, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FELISA BRONDIAL, ET AL.

    011 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. 4417 September 29, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ALEJANDRO QUIJANO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. 4542 September 29, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ISMAEL TABOTABO

    011 Phil 372