SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-792 May 14, 1949

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. E. C. CA�ADA, Defendant-Appellant.

Ernesto H. Bascon and Cecilio B. Diaz for appellant.
Assistant Solicitor General Carmelino G. Alvendia and Solicitor Antonio A. Torres for appellee.

PARAS, J.:

For having sold on June 19, 1945, two combs at twenty-five centavos each, the defendants and appellant was convicted by the municipal court of the Cityof Zamboanga of a violation of Executive Order No. 24, as amended by Executive Order No. 28, of the President of the Philippines, and sentencedto pay a fine of one hundred pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case ofinsolvency, plus the costs. Upon appeal to the Court of First Instance ofZamboanga, the appellant filed a motion to quash the information, on theground that, under Execution Order No. 62, of August 14, 1945, amendingExecutive Order No. 24, as amended by Executive Order No. 28, a comb is notincluded among the articles with fixed ceiling prices, and that as the later Executive Order is favorable to the appellant, the same should be applied. This motion to quash was denied. Upon arraignment, the appellant entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to fifteen days of arresto menor and to pay the costs. The appellant has again appealed, although his counselmerely argues that the appealed judgment should be modified so as to imposeonly a minimum fine.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Upon the other hand, the Solicitor General recommends appellant's acquittal. This recommendation is correct. We agree with the Solicitor General that the appellant cannot be convicted of a violation of Execution Order No. 24, as amended by Executive Orders Nos. 26 and 28, because a comb is not included inthe list of commodities for which maximum prices are fixed therein. It is true that there are certain item in Executive Order No. 62 (which repeals allexecutive order in conflict therewith) which may be construed as comprising combs, but appellant's conviction cannot be predicated on said ExecutiveOrder No. 62 which was promulgated only on August 14, 1945, or subsequent to the sale by the appellant, on June 19, 1945, of the two combs in question. Beside, the information charges a violation of Executive Order No. 24, as amended by Executive Order No. 28.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The appealed judgment is therefore reserved and the appellant acquitted, with costs de oficio. So ordered.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.