G.R. No. L-49107; April 21, 1944
Tan Kuy, petitioner, vs. The People of the Philippines, respondent.

FACTS

On May 18, 1943, the Chairman of the Philippine Executive Commission issued Executive Order No. 157, which prohibited, among other acts, the hoarding of commodities. “Hoarding” was defined as “the keeping or concealing of commodities in amounts or quantities in excess of the ordinary demands of trade or business.” The penalty for violation included a fine not exceeding P50,000. Prior to May 18, 1943, the petitioner, Tan Kuy, had acquired cotton and rayon textiles valued at P40,000 to P50,000 and kept them in his residence without selling them. On June 4, 1943, agents of the Economic Division seized his stock and arrested him. An information was filed charging him with violating Section 6(d) of Executive Order No. 157 for cornering and hoarding the textiles in excess of the ordinary demands of his unlicensed business. The Court of First Instance of Manila found him guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of P20,000 and ordered the confiscation of the merchandise. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence with a modification on the subsidiary imprisonment.

ISSUE

Did the petitioner violate Section 6(d) of Executive Order No. 157 by hoarding the textiles from the date the prohibition took effect (May 18, 1943) until the date of seizure (June 4, 1943)?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and acquitted the petitioner. The Court held that the petitioner’s acquisition and failure to dispose of the textiles before May 18, 1943, could not be considered unlawful, as the executive order prohibiting hoarding was not yet in effect. His conduct during that period, while antisocial, was not felonious. The Court found that his failure to sell the goods between May 18 and June 4, 1943, did not, by itself, prove an intention to hoard in violation of the new law. This conclusion was based on the following circumstances: (1) a Military Administration Order had prohibited the sale or removal of such textiles from May 16 to May 20, 1943; (2) a new ration-card system for distributing these goods was announced to begin after May 20, but it was not shown that the necessary ration tickets had been distributed to the public by June 4 to enable legal sales; and (3) the petitioner had prepared an inventory of his stock on June 2 and submitted it through the proper channels on June 3, indicating a lack of intent to conceal. Therefore, the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for violating Executive Order No. 157.