Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1958 > April 1958 Decisions > G.R. No. L-10067 April 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ONG TIN

103 Phil 476:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-10067. April 28, 1958.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ONG TIN, Defendant-Appellant.

Angel C. Sepidoza for Appellant.

First Assistant Solicitor General Guillermo E. Torres and Assistant Solicitor General Florencio Villamor for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; REGULATION OF RETAIL BUSINESS (REPUBLIC ACT No. 1180; LICENSE TO OPERATE STORE ISSUED BEFORE LAW BECAME EFFECTIVE, EFFECT OF. — Appellant argues that he cannot be convicted of a violation of Republic Act No. 1180, entitled "An Act to Regulate the Retail Business" since he had secured a license to operate a sari-sari store prior to the date when said Act became effective on June 19, 1954. In other words, he contends that said license can not be taken away from him and much less can be held criminally liable of making use of said license. Held: The granting of license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it property or property rights (Pedro v. Provincial Board of Rizal, 56 Phil., 123; Vinco v. Municipality of Hinigaran, 44 Phil., 790; Joaquin v. Herrera, 37 Phil., 705; 12 C. J. 958, Section 494; 37 C. J. 168). Moreover, as appellant himself admitted that he continued to operate his sari-sari store even after the passage of said Republic Act No. 1180, and that up to the present he continues to operate the same, it can not be denied that he has incurred the liability prescribed by law, because under its provisions his continued operation of the store was in violation of the context thereof. Hence, appellant’s conviction for said violation cannot be considered as the result of the application to him of an ex-post facto law.


D E C I S I O N


FELIX, J.:


The facts of this case are not in controversy and are correctly narrated in the brief of the State. They are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Ong Tin is undisputedly an alien, he being a subject of the Republic of China (Exhs. A, B and C). On May 27, 1954, he applied with the Office of the Mayor of Quezon City for a permit and license to open and operate a "sari-sari" store to be located at the corner of K- D and K-3rd, Kamuning, Quezon City, which application was approved on the same date with the issuance to him of Permit No. 4360 (Exhibits D and E). On August 8, 1954, Pedro S. Bolano, Chief of the Licenses- Taxes Division, Office of the City Treasurer, Quezon City, went to the said store and informed Ong Tin that pursuant to the memorandum order of the Mayor of Quezon City, he was required to surrender the permit that was previously issued to him. Appellant replied that he could not surrender the permit for the reason that the question of the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1180 was pending resolution by the Supreme Court.

Pursuant to the subpoena issued by the First Assistant City Attorney of Quezon City directed to Ong Tin (Exhibit Y), the latter appeared before said official who then required of him to surrender his license and warned him not to continue engaging in his retail business as otherwise he would be prosecuted for violation of the law. Ong Tin asked for a week time to decide whether or not to surrender his license after which he informed the City Attorney that he was not willing to surrender said license and that he was ready to fight the case in court. On October 12, 1954, Bolano, accompanied by Patrolman Leonardo San Jose, again repaired to the premises of Ong Tin and saw that the "sari-sari" store was still operating and continues to operate up to the present time.

Because of the foregoing facts that appeared at the investigation conducted by the authorities, Ong Tin was charged in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City Branch) with violation of Section 1, in relation to Section 6 of Republic Act No. 1180, entitled "An Act to Regulate the Retail Business", and after proper proceedings and hearing the Court found said defendant guilty as charged in the information and sentenced him to suffer: "the penalty of three (3) years of prision correccional and a fine of P3,000 and upon defendant’s failure to pay the same, for him to suffer the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment which shall not exceed 1/3 of the principal penalty; and to pay the costs. After the service of the sentence, defendant is hereby ordered deported to the country of his origin."cralaw virtua1aw library

From this decision Ong Tin appealed to this Court, his counsel contending in this instance that the lower Court erred:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. In convicting the accused without passing upon the constitutionality of Republic Act 1180 - an issue squarely raised by the accused as a defense during the trial of this case;

2. In not finding that Republic Act 1180 is unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void;

3. In convicting the accused because Republic Act 1180, as applied to him, is unconstitutional and does not warrant his conviction;

4. In not holding that even assuming Republic Act 1180 to be constitutional, the same does not apply to the accused inasmuch as he obtained his permit and license to engage in the retail trade before the said law was approved and before it became effective; and

5. In failing to take into account the confusion which reigned in the mind of the accused as a consequence of divergent views held by the City Mayor and the City Attorney regarding his continuance in the retail business and thus erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the violation of the provisions of Republic Act 1180.

As may be seen the first three assignments of error deal with the constitutionality of the aforementioned Republic Act 1180, a point which was already decided by Us in the noted case of Lao H. Ichong v. Jaime Hernandez Et. Al., (101 Phil., 1155) penned by Mr. Justice Alejo Labrador and promulgated on May 31, 1957. In this decision we said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Resuming what we have set forth above we hold that the disputed law (Rep. Act No. 1180) was enacted to remedy a real actual threat and danger to national economy posed by alien dominance and control of the retail business and free citizens and country from such dominance and control that the enactment clearly falls within the scope of the police power of the State, thru which and by which it protects its own personality and insures its security and future; that the law does not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution because sufficient grounds exist for the distinction between alien and citizen in the exercise of the occupation regulated, nor the due process of law clause, because the law is prospective in operation and recognizes the privilege of aliens already engaged in the occupation and reasonably protects their privilege; that the wisdom and efficacy of the law to carry out its objectives appear to us to be plainly evident — as a matter of fact it seems not only appropriate but actually necessary — and that in any case such matter falls within the prerogative of the Legislature, with whose power and discretion the Judicial department of the Government may not interfere; that the provisions of the law are clearly embraced in the title, and this suffers from no duplicity and has not misled the legislators or the segment of the population affected; and that it cannot be said to be void for supposed conflict with treaty obligations because no treaty has actually been entered into on the subject and the police power may not be curtailed or surrendered by any treaty or any other conventional agreement."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is claimed, however, that in the decision appealed from the trial court failed to pass upon the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1180, an issue squarely raised by the accused as a defense during the trial of the case. We consider, however, that this alleged error is of no moment, because laws passed by Congress are presumed to be constitutional until they are otherwise declared by final decision of this Court.

The next issue raised by defense counsel refers to the proposition that even assuming that Republic Act No. 1180 is constitutional, yet the same does not apply to the accused inasmuch as he has obtained his permit and license to engage in the retail trade before said law was approved and before it became effective. We find no merit in this contention because the acts constituting the crime for which appellant has been convicted in the case at bar were all executed after the effectivity of Republic Act No. 1180, and by no means can We consider appellant’s conviction as the result of the application to him of an ex post facto law. In this connection defense counsel further argues that appellant can not be convicted of a violation of Republic Act No. 1180 since he had secured a license to operate a sari-sari store prior to the date when said law became effective on June 19, 1954. Said in other words, counsel contends that the license can not be taken away from him and much less can he be held criminally liable of making use of said license. But, as pointed out by the Solicitor General, it has already been held that the granting of license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it property or property rights (Pedro v. Provincial Board of Rizal, 56 Phil., 123; Vinco v. Municipality of Hinigaran, 44 Phil., 790; Joaquin v. Herrera, 37 Phil, 705; 12 C. J. 958, Section 494; 37 C. J. 168). Moreover, as appellant himself admitted in the instant case that he continued to operate his sari-sari store even after the passage of Republic Act No. 1180, and that up to the present he continues to operate the same, it can not be denied that he has incurred the liability prescribed by law, because under its provisions his continued operation of the store was in violation of the context thereof.

Going now over the penalty of incarceration imposed upon appellant by the court a quo, We notice that the convict was sentenced to three (3) years of prision correctional, a punishment which does not come within the classification of imprisonment penalties provided by special penal laws, but of the Revised Penal Code. The Solicitor General also points out that the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Act have not been applied in his case.

Wherefore, and in so far as the penalty of imprisonment is concerned, the decision appealed from shall be, as it is hereby modified by sentencing appellant to an indeterminate penalty of from three (3) years to three (3) years and three (3) months of imprisonment. With the modifications just stated, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed in all other respects, with costs against Appellant.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Reyes A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L. and Endencia, JJ., concur.




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






April-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Case No. 228 April 16, 1958 - IN RE: CELSO T. OLIVA

    103 Phil 312

  • G.R. Nos. L-10206-08 April 16, 1958 - PHILIPPINES CONSOLIDATED FREIGHT LINES INC. v. EMILIANO AJON, ET AL.

    103 Phil 318

  • G.R. No. L-10419 April 16, 1958 - JULIO PAREJA v. PAZ PAREJA

    103 Phil 324

  • G.R. No. L-10783 April 16, 1958 - ESTRELLA O. ROCHA v. JUAN B. CORDIS

    103 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. L-10873 April 16, 1958 - C. N. HODGES v. WILLIAM REPOSPOLO

    103 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. L-11192 April 16, 1958 - SILVERIO BLAQUERA v. JOSE S. RODRlGUEZ

    103 Phil 335

  • G.R. No. L-11002 April 17, 1958 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ISIDORO DE LA CRUZ

    103 Phil 341

  • G.R. Nos. L-6106-07 April 18, 1958 - MADRIGAL v. HANSON, ORTH AND TEVENSON

    103 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. L-9300 April 18, 1958 - MARIANO A. ALBERT v. UNIVERSITY PUBLISHING CO.

    103 Phil 351

  • G.R. No. L-10200 April 18, 1958 - IN RE: DY TIAN SIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. L-10414 April 18, 1958 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO. v. TEODULO M. CRUZ

    103 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. L-10886 April 18, 1958 - LEONCIA E. STO. DOMINGO v. URBANA STO. DOMINGO

    103 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. L-11365 April 18, 1958 - JOSE MONTEVERDE v. CASINO ESPAÑOL DE MANILA

    103 Phil 377

  • G.R. No. L-11656 April 18, 1958 - MARIA DAVID v. FRANCISCO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    103 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. L-10724 April 21, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELQUIADES RABA

    103 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. L-11323 April 21, 1958 - BENJAMIN GEONANGA v. C. N. HODGES

    103 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. L-11602 April 21, 1958 - ALFREDO CUADRA v. TEOFISTO M. CORDOVA

    103 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. L-8564 April 23, 1958 - FRANCISCO PELAEZ v. LUZON LUMBER COMPANY

    103 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. L-11139 April 23, 1958 - SANTOS EVANGELISTA v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO.

    103 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. L-11185 April 23, 1958 - PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ, ET AL.

    103 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. L-11755 April 23, 1958 - FLORENCIO SENO v. FAUSTO PESTOLANTE, ET AL.

    103 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. L-9957 April 20, 1958 - BAYANI SUBIDO v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    103 Phil 417

  • G.R. No. L-10548 April 25, 1958 - BALTAZAR RAYMUNDO, ET AL. v. FELISA A. AFABLE, ET AL.

    103 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. L-10564 April 25, 1958 - MANDIAN (MANOBA) v. DIONISIO LEONG

    103 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. L-10631 April 25, 1958 - JOSE GARRIDO v. JOSE PEREZ CARDENAS

    103 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. L-10749 April 26, 1958 - BRIGIDO R. VALENCIA v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION

    103 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. L-10936 April 25, 1958 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. INDUSTRIAL TEXTILES COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES

    103 Phil 1046

  • G.R. No. L-10981 April 25, 1958 - ANACLETO LUISON v. FIDEL A. D. GARCIA

    103 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. L-9791 April 28, 1958 - FERNANDO A. FROILAN v. PAN ORIENTAL SHIPPING CO.

    103 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-10067 April 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ONG TIN

    103 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. L-10183 April 28, 1958 - RAQUEL ADORABLE v. IRINEA INACALA

    103 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-10214 April 28, 1958 - IN RE: DSNIEL NG TENG LIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. L-10552 April 28, 1958 - ALFREDO ERAUDA, ET AL. v. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO

    103 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-10799 April 28, 1958 - URSULA JOSE DE VILLABONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    103 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-10845 April 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROSIO LUCERO

    103 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. L-10875 April 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEBASTIAN S. LAMBINO

    103 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-10935 April 28, 1958 - SILVERIO BLAQUERA v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ

    103 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. L-11262 April 28, 1958 - CARMEN R. CASTILLO v. JUAN C. PAJO

    103 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. L-11381 April 28, 1958 - ATKINS KROLL & CO. v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    103 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. L-11584 April 28, 1958 - MANUEL ARANETA, ET AL. v. COMMONWEALTH INSURANCE CO.

    103 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. L-12120 April 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMPLICIO AGITO

    103 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. L-12202 April 28, 1958 - FILOMENO DIZON v. NICASIO YATCO

    103 Phil 530

  • G.R. Nos. L-9064-67 April 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SORIANO L. ALCARAZ

    103 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. L-10215 April 30, 1958 - ANDRES E. VARELA v. CRISTINA MARAJAS

    103 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. L-10556 April 30, 1958 - RICARDO GURREA v. JOSE MANUEL LEZAMA

    103 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. L-10582 April 30, 1958 - CONSTANCIO MANANSALA v. ANTONIO HERAS

    103 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. L-10718 April 30, 1958 - M. M. DE LOS REYES v. CORONET

    103 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. L-10792 April 30, 1958 - ENRIQUE T. JOCSON, ET AL. v. EMPIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

    103 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. L-10849 April 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO BUENO

    103 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. L-11050 April 30, 1958 - CESAR VARGAS v. VICENTE S. TUASON

    103 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. L-11052 April 30, 1958 - MILAGROS TEJUCO v. E. R. SQUIBB & SON PHILIPPINE CORPORATION

    103 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. L-11068 April 30, 1958 - J. MARIANO DE SANTOS v. CATALINO CONCEPCION, ET AL.

    103 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. L-11135 April 30, 1958 - H. E. HEACOCK CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    103 Phil 600

  • G.R. No. L-11326 April 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VENANCIO MANANGCO

    103 Phil 604

  • G.R. Nos. L-11519 & L-11520 April 30, 1958 - INES PORCIUNCULA v. NICOLAS E. ADAMOS

    103 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. L-11617 April 30, 1958 - JOSE M. GARCIA v. MANUEL M. MUÑOZ

    103 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. L-11782 April 30, 1958 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ISIDRO R. VILLAROSA

    103 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. L-11868 April 30, 1958 - SERGIO G. MARTINEZ v. MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF LABASON

    103 Phil 634

  • G.R. No. L-12646 April 30, 1958 - VICTORIA D. MIAILHE v. RUFINO P. HALILI

    103 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. L-13066 April 30, 1958 - CONSUELO FA. ALVEAR v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    103 Phil 643