G.R. No. L-7144 / March 23, 1912
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CO CHICUYCO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The defendant, Co Chicuyco, was charged with violating the Weights and Measures Act ( Act No. 1519 , Section 30). The complaint alleged that on or before January 10, 1910, in Bautista, Pangasinan, he fraudulently altered a 25-liter cavan measure (tag number 493-895) after it had been officially sealed, making it larger than its standard capacity. During trial, the prosecution established that the measure, when inspected on January 10, 1910, had a capacity about 2 millimeters greater than the official standard due to a chock inserted between its base and sides. The trial court convicted Co Chicuyco, sentencing him to three months’ imprisonment, a P200 fine, and costs.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Co Chicuyco fraudulently altered the cavan measure after it had been officially sealed.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Co Chicuyco. The prosecution’s case relied on the presumption that the measure, having been officially sealed, must have conformed to the standard at that time, and any excess capacity must have resulted from post-sealing alteration. However, the defense presented credible evidence to rebut this presumption:
1. A separate 25-liter measure, sealed by the municipal treasurer months before the trial and showing no signs of alteration, was found to have a similar excess capacity of about 2 millimeters. This demonstrated that such discrepancies could arise from official oversight or natural causes (e.g., wood expansion) without fraudulent intent.
2. The carpenter who made the measure testified that he inserted the chock before sealing, upon the order and in the presence of Garcia, the then-inspector of weights and measures, to correct a prior shortage. Garcia corroborated that he permitted such corrections for several measures, though he could not confirm if this specific measure was among them.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential element of post-sealing alteration. Conviction cannot rest on mere presumption, especially when contradicted by positive evidence. Therefore, the defendant was acquitted, with costs de oficio.