G.R. No. 4349
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANICETO BARRIAS, defendant-appellant.
September 24, 1908

FACTS:
Aniceto Barrias was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with violating paragraphs 70 and 83 of Circular No. 397 of the Insular Collector of Customs. Paragraph 70 prohibited heavily loaded vessels like lighters from moving in the Pasig River without being towed by steam or other adequate power. Barrias was observed moving a heavily laden lighter using only bamboo poles in the hands of his crew, without steam, sail, or other external power. Paragraph 83 prescribed a fine for violations.

Barrias’ counsel challenged the validity of paragraph 70, arguing it was unauthorized by Section 19 of Act No. 355 , and that if it were authorized, it constituted an illegal delegation of legislative power. The Attorney-General agreed that the rule was unauthorized under Act No. 355 and moved for Barrias’ discharge. However, the Court considered Act No. 1136 , which authorizes the Collector of Customs to make rules for the lighterage business (Sec. 5) and makes violations of such rules a misdemeanor punishable by specific penalties (Sec. 8). The original complaint, however, cited Acts Nos. 355 and 1235, with Act No. 1235 empowering the Collector to “fix penalties for violation thereof.”

ISSUE:
Can the Collector of Customs’ regulation (Circular No. 397, par. 70) be sustained as a valid exercise of delegated power, particularly when the enabling statute (Act No. 1235, initially cited) appears to delegate the power to fix penalties, a legislative function?

RULING:
Yes, the regulation itself is valid, but the conviction must be sustained under the proper enabling statute.

The Court held that the power to make rules and regulations for the lighterage business, as granted to the Collector of Customs by Section 5 of Act No. 1136 , is a valid delegation of power. Such regulations are in the nature of police regulations necessary for harbor management and do not involve an undue grant of legislative power. The moving of heavily loaded lighters by inadequate power in the Pasig River falls within the scope of these legitimate harbor regulations.

However, the Court affirmed the constitutional principle that the power to make laws, including defining crimes and fixing penalties for their violation, cannot be delegated by the legislature. Act No. 1235, which permitted the Collector to “fix penalties,” would indeed constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.

Nevertheless, the Court found that Act No. 1136 was sufficient to sustain the prosecution. Under Act No. 1136 , Section 8, the Act itself declares that any violation of rules made by the Collector shall be a misdemeanor and prescribes the specific penalties (imprisonment for not more than six months, or a fine of not more than one hundred dollars, or both). Thus, the criminal offense and its punishment are defined by the legislature, and the Collector merely designates the details of the regulation. The erroneous reference to Acts Nos. 355 and 1235 in the complaint was immaterial, as the offense was correctly described and fell under a valid statute ( Act No. 1136 ).

Therefore, the defendant’s conviction for violating the Collector’s regulation was sustained, but it was modified to be under Act No. 1136 . Barrias was convicted of a misdemeanor and punished by a fine of 25 dollars, with costs.