Case Digest (G.R. No. L-17122)
Facts:
The United States v. Ang Tang Ho, G.R. No. 17122. February 27, 1922, the Supreme Court En Banc, Johns, J., writing for the Court.The case arises from prosecutions under Act No. 2868 (passed 1919) and Executive Order No. 53 (Governor‑General, Aug. 1, 1919). Act No. 2868 authorized the Governor‑General, with the consent of the Council of State, to promulgate temporary rules and emergency measures “whenever, for any cause, conditions arise resulting in an extraordinary rise in the price of palay, rice or corn,” including authority “to fix, from time to time, the quantities … that a company or individual may acquire, and the maximum sale price” (secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7). Executive Order No. 53 fixed maximum prices for palay, rice and corn (including rice at P15 per sack or 63 centavos per ganta) and directed provincial treasurers to apply adjustments for local costs.
On August 6, 1919 respondent Ang Tang Ho allegedly sold one ganta of rice at P0.80 in Manila. A complaint filed August 8 charged him with violating Executive Order No. 53, in relation to sections 1, 2 and 4 of Act No. 2868. He was tried, convicted, sentenced to five months’ imprisonment and fined P500, and appealed to the Supreme Court.
The official record showed Act No. 2868 was approved July 30, 1919; the Governor‑General issued the proclamation (Executive Order No. 53) August 1, 1919; but the Act was first published August 13, 1919 and the proclamation first published August 20, 1919 — all after the alleged sale of August 6. The Court of First Instance had convicted; the case reached the Supreme Court by appeal. The principal question presented was whether Act No. 2868, insofar as it empowered the Governor‑General to fix prices and to make violations of such...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the defendant convicted under a law or order that was not yet in force at the time of the alleged sale (i.e., is there an ex post facto/publication problem)?
- Whether Act No. 2868 and Executive Order No. 53, insofar as they authorize the Governor‑General to fix the price of rice and make violation of such proclamation a crime, constitute an unconstitutional de...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)