G.R. No. L-10067 - People vs. Ong Tin

Ong Tin, an alien and subject of the Republic of China, applied for a permit and license to operate a “sari-sari” store.
The application was made on May 27, 1954, at the Office of the Mayor of Quezon City.
The permit and license (Permit No. 4360) were issued on the same day.

On August 8, 1954, Pedro S. Bolano, Chief of the Licenses-Taxes Division of the Office of the City Treasurer in Quezon City, visited Ong Tin’s store.
Bolano informed Ong Tin that, under the memorandum order issued by the Mayor, he was required to surrender the license.
In response, Ong Tin claimed he could not surrender the permit because the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1180 was still pending before the Supreme Court.

A subpoena was issued by the First Assistant City Attorney, requiring Ong Tin’s appearance.
During this appearance, Ong Tin was ordered to surrender his license and warned against further operation of his retail business.
Ong Tin requested a week to decide but ultimately informed the City Attorney that he would not surrender the license, expressing his readiness to contest the matter in court.

Ong Tin was charged in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City Branch) with violating Section 1, in relation to Section 6 of Republic Act No. 1180, "An Act to Regulate the Retail Business."
The trial court, after due proceedings, found Ong Tin guilty and sentenced him to:

Three (3) years of prision correccional and a fine of P3,000, with a subsidiary imprisonment (not exceeding one-third of the principal penalty) if the fine was not paid.
Deportation to his country of origin upon the completion of the sentence.

The trial court’s failure to decide on the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1180.
The argument that RA 1180 was not applicable since his permit was obtained before the law became effective.
The contention regarding the confusing directions given by the City Mayor and City Attorney concerning the continuance of his business operations.

The appellant’s counsel also raised issues regarding the nature of the license, arguing it endowed him with irrevocable rights against governmental revocation, citing earlier precedents.

Whether the trial court erred in convicting Ong Tin without expressly passing upon the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1180, a matter raised by the accused during trial.
Whether, even assuming the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1180, the law should apply to Ong Tin given that he secured his permit and license prior to the law’s approval and effectivity.
Whether the continuation of the operation of a “sari-sari” store after the law’s effectivity constitutes a violation of the provisions of Republic Act No. 1180.
The propriety of modifying the imposed penalty under the Revised Penal Code, particularly concerning the indeterminate sentence framework.