G.R. No. 172196 - Meneses vs. Venturozo

The complaint charged Co Chicuyco, a Chinaman, with violating the Weights and Measures Act.
It was alleged that on or before January 10, 1910, in the pueblo of Bautista, Pangasinan, the defendant altered a cavan measure of 25 liters bearing tag number 493-895.
The alteration was said to have been done with fraudulent intent, resulting in a measure that had a greater capacity than the official standard.
The specific method of alteration involved the placement of a chock (calzo) approximately 2 millimeters thick between the base and the boards of the four sides of the measure, thereby increasing its depth and overall capacity.

It is established that the measure was officially inspected and sealed around February 1909.
When inspected by the official sealer, Rafael Puzon, on January 10, 1910, the measure was noted to exceed the official standard by about 2 millimeters.
The excess capacity was mathematically deduced as 2 millimeters multiplied by the four sides of its base, indicating a slight but measurable increase over the mandated capacity.

The prosecution deduced that the altered capacity originated from a fraudulent act committed after the measure was officially sealed.
The defense presented evidence in the form of a measure of 25 liters sealed by the municipal treasurer of Bautista, which, though slightly exceeding the standard, was testified to have been sealed in its present condition.
The defense further advanced the possibility that any excess in capacity could be due to natural phenomena such as the expansion of the wood or minor inconsistencies in the sealing process rather than intentional alteration.
A carpenter, who was responsible for manufacturing the measure, testified that he installed the chock prior to the official sealing and in the presence of municipal officials, including an officer named Garcia.
Garcia, who was then the inspector of weights and measures, corroborated that similar measures sometimes required adjustments (chocks) to correct shortages and confirmed that the carpenter installed the chock in his presence.

The prosecution based its argument on a presumption that every measure when sealed must exactly conform to the official standard.
It was contended that any deviation from the standard, such as the 2-millimeter excess, was indicative of tampering or fraudulent alteration done after the sealing.
The defense, however, argued that there was no positive evidence to indicate that the defective measure had been altered post-sealing, suggesting that the discrepancy could already have been present due to approved adjustments or natural factors.

Whether the measure’s increased capacity was a result of a post-sealing fraudulent alteration by the defendant.

The central issue was the timing of the placement of the chock: did it occur before or after the official sealing?
Whether the mere existence of a capacity slightly above the official standard is sufficient evidence of fraudulent alteration.

Can a conviction for violation of the Weights and Measures Act be based on a presumption of illegality derived solely from a minute discrepancy?
Whether the testimonies of the municipal treasurer and the carpenter provided adequate positive evidence to refute the prosecution’s presumption.

The admissibility of evidence showing that measures may naturally exceed the official standard without indicating fraud.
The proper weight and relevance of the evidence that such variations may result from manufacturing practices or natural phenomena, rather than a deliberate alteration.