Case Digest (G.R. No. L-11324)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Yu Bao, G.R. No. L-11324, March 29, 1958, Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.
The prosecution (plaintiff-appellee) charged Yu Bao (defendant-appellant), a non‑citizen, in the Court of First Instance of Rizal with violating Republic Act No. 1180 (the Retail Trade Regulation Act). The information alleged that although the accused was not actually engaged in retail business prior to May 15, 1954, he obtained Permit No. 4345 and, after being ordered by the City Treasurer of Quezon City to surrender the permit and desist from retailing, wilfully refused and continued to engage in retail business.
At trial the prosecution produced three witnesses. Francisco Basa, assistant chief of the License Division, identified appellant’s license application (Exhibit A) signed by Yu Bao, in which he stated he was the holder of Alien Certificate of Registration No. 32560. Pedro S. Bolano, chief of the License and Taxes Division, testified that pursuant to the Mayor’s order to check aliens affected by RA 1180 he visited appellant’s store on August 8, 1954, informed appellant to close and surrender his license, and again on October 12, 1954 found the store still open (memorialized in Exhibit B). Patrolman Leonardo San Jose testified that he accompanied Bolano on the October 12 inspection and attested to Exhibit B.
After the prosecution rested, the defense moved to dismiss on grounds that RA 1180 was unconstitutional and that the evidence was insufficient to show appellant’s alienage and post‑enactment retailing; the defense sought to file a supporting memorandum. The trial court denied the motion (having heard oral argument), convicted appellant as charged, and imposed three years of prision correccional, a P3,000 fine, subsidiary imprisonment upon insolvency, and deportation after service of sentence; a written decision followed.
...(Subscriber-Only)Issues:
- Is Republic Act No. 1180 constitutional as applied in this case?
- Were the prosecution’s facts sufficient to prove that appellant was an alien and that he continued to engage in the retail business after notice to desist?
- Do the penal provisions of Republic Act No. 1180 operate as an ex post facto law when applied to appellant who began retaili...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)