GR 159149; (August, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 159149; August 28, 2007
THE HONORABLE SECRETARY VINCENT S. PEREZ, in his capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Energy, Petitioner, vs. LPG REFILLERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent.
FACTS
This case involves a Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent LPG Refillers Association of the Philippines, Inc., seeking to reverse the Court’s Decision dated June 26, 2006, which upheld the validity of Department of Energy (DOE) Circular No. 2000-06-010. The Circular implements Batas Pambansa Blg. 33, as amended, which penalizes illegal trading, adulteration, underfilling, hoarding, and overpricing of petroleum products. Respondent argues that the Circular is invalid for prescribing new prohibited acts and penalties not found in the law, thereby violating the principle that penal statutes must be construed strictly against the state. Specifically, respondent contends the Circular lists brand-new punishable offenses, such as the absence of price display boards or correct tare weight markings, which are not enumerated in B.P. Blg. 33. Furthermore, respondent asserts that the Circular’s provision for penalties on a per-cylinder basis results in fines exceeding the statutory ceiling and is confiscatory, offending constitutional rights.
ISSUE
Whether DOE Circular No. 2000-06-010 is a valid exercise of the Department of Energy’s rule-making authority under B.P. Blg. 33, as amended, or an invalid expansion of the law’s penal provisions.
RULING
The Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration and upheld the Circular’s validity. On the first contention, the Court ruled that the Circular does not create new offenses but merely enumerates specific modes by which the general criminal acts defined in B.P. Blg. 33—such as illegal trading and underfilling—may be committed. A penal statute is not rendered void for vagueness merely because it uses general terms; the legislative intent in B.P. Blg. 33 is clear, and the DOE, in issuing the Circular, permissibly filled in details for its implementation without adding extraneous elements. The “void for vagueness” doctrine is thus inapplicable.
Regarding the penalties, the Court found that imposing fines on a per-cylinder basis does not exceed the ceiling in B.P. Blg. 33, as Section 4 penalizes “any act” prohibited. A violation involving multiple cylinders constitutes multiple acts, and a per-cylinder penalty is a reasonable calibration to avoid an indiscriminate and oppressive application where a single penalty would apply regardless of scale. This approach aligns with the equal protection clause, ensuring that liabilities correspond to the circumstances. The penalties are not confiscatory but regulatory, aimed practically at curbing illicit practices in the LPG industry as authorized by the law. All other arguments were deemed already addressed in the prior Decision.