G.R. No. 23921 - Gomez vs. Concepcion

Dr. Dominador Gomez, a practicing physician in Manila, was charged in criminal case No. 27550 for allegedly violating section 2 of Act No. 2381 (the Opium Law) and the Internal Revenue Law.
The complaint accused him, along with co-accused Olimpio Sison and Flaviano Torres, of operating a place for the injection of morphine, cocaine, and other prohibited drugs at his clinic on Calle T. Pinpin, Manila, between February 1 and April 26, 1924.

After a lengthy trial, the trial court found that although evidence indicated Dr. Gomez treated several hundred patients daily by administering morphine or opium injections, his method of treatment was not legally justified as a medicinal cure.
The trial judge noted that despite the illegal use of the drugs under the guise of medical treatment, there arose a reasonable doubt regarding Dr. Gomez’s criminal intent, considering his openness, voluntary invitation to police inspections, and full disclosure of his operations.
The court thus conferred that the violation of the Opium Law was established, yet Dr. Gomez was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt concerning his guilt.

Despite his acquittal, Dr. Gomez did not comply with the portion of the judgment ordering the immediate closure of his clinic and the confiscation of drugs and related paraphernalia.
On March 16, 1925, the respondent fiscal filed a motion seeking enforcement of the judgment ordering the closure of the clinic, which the trial court granted the following day by directing the respondent sheriff to execute the order.
Dr. Gomez then petitioned for a writ of prohibition, challenging the order as a penalty imposed after his acquittal and arguing that such penalty, not prescribed as one of the legal sanctions for the offense charged, was void ab initio.

The central contention by Dr. Gomez was that imposing a penalty (the closure of his clinic) after an acquittal was contrary to law since it effectively compounded a punishment upon a verdict of not guilty.
He argued that a judgment giving rise to a penalty without first establishing his guilt lacked the essential element of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The issue was further compounded by legal principles suggesting that if a judgment is void ab initio (due to lack of jurisdiction), it cannot be judicially enforced.

Whether the trial court had the subject-matter jurisdiction to impose a penalty (namely, the closure of the clinic) after finding Dr. Gomez not guilty.
Whether the imposition of such a penalty without a preceding finding of guilt renders the judgment void ab initio.

Whether the portion of the judgment ordering the closure of the clinic is void ab initio or merely voidable.
The distinction between a void judgment (which is non-existent in legal effect) and a voidable judgment (which may be annulled if proper proceedings are taken).

Whether a collateral attack by way of a petition for a writ of prohibition is appropriate to restrain the execution of a judgment that is claimed to be void.
The legal propriety of executing a penalty inherent in a judgment despite the acquittal of the accused.