0.2 Suy Sui vs. People

EN BANC
G.R. No. L-5278 February 17, 1953
SUY SUI, Petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
M. H. de Joya for petitioner.

Office of the Solicitor General Pompeyo Diaz and Solicitor Juan T.
Alano for respondent.
PARAS, C.J.: chanrobles virtual law library
The petitioner was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila

with a violation of Executive Order No. 331 in relation to Republic
Act No. 509, in the following information:
That on or about the 17th day of July, 1950, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously sell and offer for sale to the public at 312 Quezon
Boulevard, in the said city, one bag of refined sugar, 10 lbs. at P2,
which price is in excess of P0.20 than that authorized by law as the
maximum ceiling price of said commodity, to wit P1.80.
After trial the court found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to
pay a fine of P5,000, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and to be barred from engaging in the wholesale and
retail business in the Philippines for a period of five years, with a
recommendation to the President for the immediate deportation of
the petitioner. From this judgment the petitioner appealed, but the
same was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The case is now before
us on certiorari from the Court of Appeals.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
The petitioner, the owner of a grocery store located at Quezon

Boulevard, Manila, was found by the Court of Appeals to have sold
on July 17, 1950 a 10-pound bag of refined sugar to Faustino
Caraan for the price of P2, allegedly in excess by twenty centavos of
the ceiling price fixed in Executive Order No. 331. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
In his first assignment of error, the petitioner contends that the

classification of refined sugar into two groups contained in Executive
Order No. 331 is ambiguous, as may be seen from the following, -
an ambiguity which should be resolved in favor of the petitioner:
Sugar Un Importer' Wholesal Retail

it s or e price ceiling
producer' price
s price
Refined, P16.00/1 P17.20/1 P0.40

packed 00 00 /k
in
cellopha
ne
Refined, 5.25/15k 6.00/15k 0.45/

packed k
in
cellopha
ne
In other words, the petitioner claims that, for the same refined
sugar, two ceiling prices for one kilo are fixed, namely, P0.40 and
P0.45, with the result that, if P0.45 is adopted as criterion, 10
pounds of sugar would cost approximately P2.02, or P0.02 less than
the amount for which the petitioner sold the 10 pounds bags of
refined sugar to Faustino Caraan. Petitioner's contention is tenable
considering that penal statutes are to be construed strictly. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
It is, however, argued on the part of the respondent that the

petitioner failed to raise the point not only in the Court of First
Instance by a motion to quash but also in the Court of Appeals, as
consequence of which he must be deemed to have waived the
objection. In the first place, under section 10, Rule 113, of the
Rules of Court, failure to move to quash amounts to a waiver of all
objections which are grounds for a motion to squash except when
the complaint or information does not charge an offense, or the
court is without jurisdiction of the same. It is apparent that the
point now raised by the petitioner is in effect that the information
does not charge an offense. In the second place, as an appeal in
criminal proceedings throws the whole case open for review, it
should have been the duty of the Court of Appeals to correct such
errors as might be found in the appealed judgment, whether they
are assigned or not. (People vs. Borbano, 1 43 Off. Gaz., 478.) On
the other hand, in Villareal vs. People, 2 (47 Off. Gaz., 191),we held
that notwithstanding the absence of assignments of error, the
appellate court will review the record and reverse or modify the
appealed judgment, not only on grounds that the court had no
jurisdiction or that the acts proved do not constitute the offense
charged, but also on prejudicial error to the right of accused which
are plain, fundamental, vital, or serious, or on errors which go to
the sufficiency of the evidence to convict; although the rule doing
away with formal assignments of errors does not dispense with the
necessity of pointing out technical and non-fundamental errors
which do not affect the substantial rights of an accused to a fair
trial, and are not patent.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
It becomes unnecessary for us to discuss the petitioner's other

assignments of error regarding the alleged unconstitutionally of
section 12 of Republic Act No. 509. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Wherefore, the appealed decision is reversed and the petitioner is

hereby acquitted with costs de oficio. So ordered. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo

and Labrador, JJ., concur.

0.2 Suy Sui vs. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

0.2 Suy Sui vs. People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

0.2 Suy Sui vs. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-5278 February 17, 1953

SUY SUI, Petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE

M. H. de Joya for petitioner.

PARAS, C.J.: chanrobles virtual law library

The petitioner was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila

The petitioner, the owner of a grocery store located at Quezon

In his first assignment of error, the petitioner contends that the

Sugar Un Importer' Wholesal Retail

Refined, P16.00/1 P17.20/1 P0.40

Refined, 5.25/15k 6.00/15k 0.45/

It is, however, argued on the part of the respondent that the

It becomes unnecessary for us to discuss the petitioner's other

Wherefore, the appealed decision is reversed and the petitioner is

Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo

You might also like