G.R. No. L-5278 - Suy Sui vs. People

The petitioner, Suy Sui, owner of a grocery store located on Quezon Boulevard, Manila, was charged with a violation of Executive Order No. 331, which is enacted in relation to Republic Act No. 509.
The charge stemmed from an alleged illegal sale of refined sugar at a price exceeding the government-fixed ceiling price.

On or about July 17, 1950, a 10-pound bag of refined sugar was sold to Faustino Caraan at the price of P2 at the petitioner’s store in Manila.
The information in the charge stated that this sale was in excess by P0.20 of the authorized maximum ceiling price as determined by Executive Order No. 331.

Executive Order No. 331 classified refined sugar into two groups with differing pricing parameters for unit importer’s/producer’s price, wholesale price, and retail ceiling price.
The classification provided two different ceiling prices for refined sugar:

The petitioner argued that if the P0.45 rate was used, then the price for a 10-pound bag of sugar would be approximately P2.02—only P0.02 less than the actual selling price—thus contesting that no offense was committed.

At trial in the Court of First Instance of Manila, the petitioner was found guilty; he was fined P5,000, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
In addition, he was ordered to be barred from engaging in the wholesale and retail business for five years, and the court recommended his immediate deportation.
The petitioner appealed the judgment, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction based on the evidence and charges in the information.

The petitioner contended that the ambiguity in setting two different ceiling prices for the same commodity should be resolved in his favor, given that penal statutes must be construed strictly.
The respondent argued that the petitioner had waived his objection by failing to:

File a motion to quash the information at the trial level under Section 10, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
Raise the issue in the Court of Appeals.

The argument noted that, under established case law, failure to timely move to quash is considered a waiver of any objections regarding the sufficiency or specificity of the charged offense.

People vs. Borbano – where the appellate court was reminded that an appeal in criminal proceedings opens the whole case for review, including the correction of any prejudicial errors.
Villareal vs. People – which established that the appellate court may reverse or modify a conviction based on plain, fundamental, or substantial errors adversely affecting the accused’s right to a fair trial, even if such errors were not formally assigned.
The additional principle stated in the concurring opinion by Justice Tuason: "No one can be convicted for an act which is not punishable by law," affirming that the accused cannot be penalized for a non-existent offense regardless of procedural moves or raised points.

Whether the two different ceiling prices for refined sugar in Executive Order No. 331 created an ambiguity that should be resolved in favor of the petitioner.
If the correct ceiling price was indeed P0.45 per kilo, does the selling price of P2 for a 10-pound bag exceed the lawfully prescribed limit?

Whether the petitioner, by not filing a motion to quash at the trial level or raising the issue in the appellate court, effectively waived his objection regarding the ambiguity of the charged offense.
To what extent does the established rule on waiver under Section 10, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court affect the petitioner's substantive claim?

Whether the appellate court was obliged to review and correct the alleged prejudicial error—in this case, the ambiguity regarding the offensive conduct—even though it was not formally raised on appeal.
The extent to which the principle that no one is convicted of an act that is not punishable by law applies when the ground for objection was only raised at the appellate stage.