Title
People vs. De la Cruz
Case
G.R. No. L-5790
Decision Date
Apr 17, 1953
A store owner, Pablo de la Cruz, was convicted for selling milk above the government-mandated price. The Supreme Court upheld the law but reduced his excessive penalty, emphasizing proportionality and judicial discretion.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-5790)

Key Dates

  • Offense: October 14, 1950
  • Decision: April 17, 1953

Applicable Law

  • Executive Order No. 331 implementing Republic Act No. 509 (price ceilings on essential commodities)
  • Penalty scheme under RA 509, Section 12
  • 1935 Philippine Constitution, prohibition on excessive fines and cruel or unusual punishment

Factual Background

On October 14, 1950, Eduardo Bernardo Jr. bought a six-ounce tin of “Carnation” milk from Pablo de la Cruz for ₱0.30, exceeding the ₱0.20 ceiling fixed by EO 331. The transaction, motivated by personal discord between De la Cruz and the intended recipient (Ruperto Austria), led to prosecution for selling above the maximum price.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether the charge was fabricated.
  2. Whether the imposed penalty was disproportionate and hence unconstitutional.
  3. Whether RA 509’s penalty provisions themselves were invalid for prescribing excessive sanctions.

Fabrication and Entrapment

The Court found uncontroverted evidence that De la Cruz sold above the prescribed ceiling. The fabrication claim was dismissed, and no entrapment was shown, since the sale was openly conducted to any customer without inducement.

Constitutional Challenge to Penalties

Article on excessive fines and cruel or unusual punishment under the 1935 Constitution was examined. While traditional jurisprudence treats “cruel and unusual” as referring to archaic modes of punishment, some authorities extend the prohibition to sentences so severe as to shock contemporary standards of justice.

Theories on Judicial Review of Statutory Penalties

Two competing doctrines were considered:

  • Theory 1: Constitutional limits apply only to legislative enactments; if a penalty falls within statutory bounds, courts lack power to reduce it on constitutional grounds.
  • Theory 2: Constitutional limits also restrain judicial sentencing; a court must compare the statutory penalty with the offense’s actual gravity and impose only what is proportionate.

Application of Theories

Under Theory 1, RA 509’s minimum imprisonment (two months) and fine (₱2,000) were not excessive, given the potential for large illicit gains. Under Theory 2, a five-year term and ₱5,000 fine for a ten-centavo overcharge appeared disproportionate to the wron

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.