GR L 2358; (August, 1906) (Digest)
Digest of United States v. Ang Kan Ko (G.R. No. L-2358, August 22, 1906)
FACTS:
1. The defendant, Ang Kan Ko, was a member of the Chinese firm Hieng Cheong Shing, which was organized to fraudulently import goods into the Philippines without paying proper customs duties.
2. On August 25, 1903, Ang Kan Ko filed a declaration at the custom-house for imported goods, falsely stating that three packages contained “imitation butter” when they actually contained aniseed oil and pearl buttonsgoods subject to higher duties.
3. The false declaration allowed the firm to pay lower duties, defrauding the government.
4. Ang Kan Ko was charged under Section 317 of Act No. 355 (Customs Administrative Act) for making a false entry using fraudulent documents.
5. The trial court convicted him, sentencing him to six months imprisonment, a fine of ₱1,000, and subsidiary imprisonment in case of nonpayment.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the subsidiary imprisonment imposed for nonpayment of the fine was valid under the law in force at the time of the offense.
2. Whether Act No. 864 (which modified subsidiary imprisonment rules) could be applied retroactively to Ang Kan Ko’s case without violating the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.
RULING:
1. Subsidiary Imprisonment Under the Penal Code:
– At the time of the offense (August 25, 1903), Section 291 of Act No. 355 governed subsidiary imprisonment, referring to the Penal Code (which allowed imprisonment at a rate of one day per ₱2.50 unpaid).
– Act No. 864 (effective September 2, 1903) repealed Section 291 and imposed a harsher rate (as low as ₱0.40 per day), but it could not apply retroactively to Ang Kan Ko’s case.
2. Ex Post Facto Law Prohibition:
– The U.S. Philippine Organic Act (1902) prohibited ex post facto laws.
– Applying Act No. 864 to Ang Kan Ko’s offense (committed before its enactment) would violate this prohibition because it increased punishment retroactively.
3. Final Decision:
– The conviction was upheld, but the subsidiary imprisonment provision was stricken out as invalid.
– The court ruled that no valid subsidiary imprisonment law existed at the time of judgment (February 1904) since Act No. 864 had repealed the prior law without preserving it for pending cases.
Case remanded to the lower court for execution of the modified judgment.
Concurring Justices: Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, and Tracey.