GR L 10067; (April, 1958) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-10067; April 28, 1958
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ONG TIN, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Ong Tin, an alien and subject of the Republic of China, was granted a permit and license to operate a sari-sari store in Quezon City on May 27, 1954. After Republic Act No. 1180 (the Retail Trade Nationalization Law) took effect on June 19, 1954, city authorities demanded the surrender of his permit. Ong Tin refused, stating the law’s constitutionality was pending before the Supreme Court, and continued operating his store. He was subsequently charged with violating Republic Act No. 1180 . The Court of First Instance of Rizal found him guilty, sentencing him to three years of prision correccional, a fine of P3,000, and deportation after service of sentence. Ong Tin appealed, raising issues including the constitutionality of the law and its applicability to him as a pre-existing license holder.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court erred in not passing upon the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1180 .
2. Whether Republic Act No. 1180 is unconstitutional.
3. Whether the law, as applied to Ong Tin, is unconstitutional and warrants his conviction.
4. Whether Republic Act No. 1180 applies to Ong Tin, who obtained his permit before the law’s approval and effectivity.
5. Whether confusion caused by divergent views of city officials negates guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
1. The trial court’s failure to rule on constitutionality is immaterial, as laws are presumed constitutional until declared otherwise by the Supreme Court.
2. Republic Act No. 1180 is constitutional, as established in Lao H. Ichong vs. Hernandez. It is a valid exercise of police power to address alien dominance in retail trade, does not violate equal protection or due process, and its provisions are within the law’s title.
3. The law is constitutional as applied; Ong Tin’s continued operation after its effectivity constituted a violation.
4. The law applies to Ong Tin. His pre-existing license did not create an irrevocable right, and his acts of operating the store after the law’s effectivity fall within its prohibition.
5. No confusion negates guilt; Ong Tin knowingly continued operations despite warnings.
The penalty is modified to an indeterminate sentence of three (3) years to three (3) years and three (3) months of imprisonment. The decision is affirmed in all other respects, including the fine and order of deportation.