G.R. No. 27637 , November 17, 1927
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARLOS S. TAN, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Carlos S. Tan was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Leyte for violating Section 2 of the U.S. Act of Congress of July 16, 1918. The law regulated fees for agents assisting in pension claims for widows and children of U.S. military personnel who served in the War with Spain, the Philippine Insurrection, or the China Relief Expedition. Tan was sentenced to pay a fine of P10, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. He appealed, arguing that the said U.S. Act was not applicable to the Philippine Islands.

ISSUE

1. Whether the U.S. Act of Congress of July 16, 1918, is applicable to the Philippine Islands.
2. Whether the penalty of subsidiary imprisonment was correctly imposed.

RULING

1. Yes, the Act is applicable. The Supreme Court held that the Act, while primarily a pension law for widows and orphans, also has the indirect object of maintaining and preserving the U.S. Army and Navy by assuring the welfare of servicemen’s families. Following the doctrine in *Tan Te vs. Bell*, laws relating to the creation, regulation, and maintenance of the Army, unless specifically limited, are of nationwide application and extend to all U.S. territory, including the Philippines. The Act’s reference to services rendered in the “Philippine insurrection” is a clear indication of its intended application to the Islands.
2. No, subsidiary imprisonment cannot be imposed. The Act itself does not provide for subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency to pay the fine. Neither Article 50 of the Spanish Penal Code (applicable only to its own penalties) nor Act No. 1732 (applicable only to penalties under Acts of the Philippine Legislature) can supply this penalty for a violation of a U.S. Act of Congress. Therefore, the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment was erroneous.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The appealed judgment was AFFIRMED with modifications. The order for subsidiary imprisonment was ELIMINATED. Furthermore, the Court ORDERED Carlos S. Tan to return the illegal excess fee of $15 (equivalent to P30) to the claimant, Rufina Bañez. Costs were imposed on the appellant.