Case Summary (G.R. No. L-5790)
Factual Background
On the morning of October 14, 1950, Eduardo Bernardo, Jr. went to the store of Pablo de la Cruz in Sampaloc, Manila, and purchased a six‑ounce tin of "Carnation" milk for thirty centavos. The purchase was made for Ruperto Austria, who was not on good terms with the defendant. Because Executive Order No. 331, issued under Republic Act No. 509, fixed twenty centavos as the maximum selling price for that commodity, the sale resulted in a criminal prosecution.
Trial Court Proceedings
Following trial in the Court of First Instance of Manila, the accused was convicted. The trial court sentenced Pablo de la Cruz to imprisonment for five years, imposed a fine of five thousand pesos plus costs, and barred him from engaging in wholesale and retail business for five years.
Appellant's Contentions on Appeal
On appeal the defendant argued that the charge was fabricated, that the punishment imposed was wholly disproportionate to the offense and therefore unconstitutional, and that Republic Act No. 509 should be invalidated insofar as it prescribed excessive penalties.
The People's Case and Entrapment Claim
The Supreme Court found the People's case established beyond reasonable doubt and rejected the contention that the charge lacked foundation. The Court also refused to sustain the defense of entrapment, reasoning that the accused was selling to the public and no special circumstances showed he was led or induced to commit the offense.
Statutory Penalties under Republic Act No. 509
The Court quoted Section 12 of Republic Act No. 509, which prescribed imprisonment "for a period of not less than two months nor more than twelve years or a fine of not less than two thousand pesos nor more than ten thousand pesos, or both" for selling in excess of maximum prices fixed by the President. Section 12 also provided that persons found guilty shall be barred from wholesale and retail business for five years for a first offense and permanently for subsequent offenses.
Constitutional Provision and Nature of the Prohibition
The Court considered the constitutional directive that "Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted." It observed authorities holding that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment traditionally addressed the form or character of punishments rather than their duration or amount, but it acknowledged other authorities that apply the inhibition to punishments whose severity in duration or extent shocks the moral sense of reasonable men.
The Court's Analysis of Doctrinal Theories
The Court surveyed two opposing theories. One theory confines the constitutional prohibition to legislation and does not restrict a judge's imposition of penalties within statutory limits; the other theory subjects judicially imposed sentences to the same fundamental restriction and permits comparison of the particular penalty with the gravity of the offense. The Court assumed, without deciding, that an unduly long prison term might conflict with the Constitution. Applying the first theory, the Court held that the statutory minima and maxima were not plainly excessive because overstepping price ceilings might produce substantial illicit profits. Under the second theory, the Court acknowledged the force of the argument that five years' imprisonment and a PHP 5,000 fine for a transaction that netted the accused ten centavos could be disproportionate, yet noted
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-5790)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, prosecuted PABLO DE LA CRUZ, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT, for selling commodities above the ceiling price fixed by the President.
- The trial court of the court of first instance of Manila found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment for five years, to pay a fine of five thousand pesos plus costs, and to be barred from engaging in wholesale and retail business for five years.
- The defendant appealed the conviction and sentence to the Court which rendered the decision under review.
Key Facts
- In the morning of October 14, 1950, Eduardo Bernardo, Jr. went to the defendant's store in Sampaloc, Manila, and bought a six-ounce tin of "Carnation" milk from the defendant.
- The purchase price was thirty centavos for the six-ounce tin of milk.
- The purchase had been made for Ruperto Austria, who was not in good terms with the defendant, and the matter reached the City Fiscal's office.
- Executive Order No. 331 fixed twenty centavos as the maximum selling price for that commodity at the time of the sale.
- The evidence at trial showed the sale and the price and formed the basis for the criminal prosecution.
Statutory Framework
- Republic Act No. 509 provided in Section 12 that any person who sold goods in excess of the maximum selling price fixed by the President shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two months nor more than 12 years or by a fine of not less than two thousand pesos nor more than ten thousand pesos, or both.
- Republic Act No. 509 further provided that persons or entities convicted of violations shall be barred from the wholesale and retail business for five years for a first offense and permanently for a second or succeeding offense.
- The Constitution directs that "Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted."
- The practice under Art. 5 Revised Penal Code was noted whereby courts finding a penalty "clearly excessive" might enforce the law but recommend clemency to the Chief Executive.
Issues Presented
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing to hold that the charge was fabricated.
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing to find entrapment.
- Whether the punishment imposed was wholly disproportionate to the offense and therefore unconstitutional as an excessive fine or as cruel and unusual punishment.
- Whether Republic Act No. 509 should be invalidated insofar as it prescribed