G.R. No. L-5278 February 17, 1953
Suy Sui, petitioner, vs. The People of the Philippines, respondent.

FACTS

The petitioner, Suy Sui, owner of a grocery store in Manila, was charged with violating Executive Order No. 331 in relation to Republic Act No. 509 for selling a 10-pound bag of refined sugar for P2.00 on July 17, 1950, allegedly exceeding the legal ceiling price by twenty centavos. The Court of First Instance of Manila found him guilty, imposing a fine of P5,000, a five-year prohibition from engaging in wholesale or retail business, and a recommendation for deportation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court via certiorari, contending that Executive Order No. 331 was ambiguous because it listed two different retail ceiling prices for refined sugar packed in cellophane: P0.40 per kilo and P0.45 per kilo. He argued that if the P0.45 per kilo price were applied, the legal price for 10 pounds (approximately 4.54 kilos) would be about P2.02, making his sale price of P2.00 actually two centavos below the ceiling. The respondent argued that the petitioner waived this objection by not raising it in a motion to quash before the trial court or in his appeal to the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the ambiguity in Executive Order No. 331 regarding the retail ceiling price for refined sugar warrants the acquittal of the petitioner, despite his failure to raise the issue in a motion to quash or in his appeal to the Court of Appeals.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the appealed decision and acquitted the petitioner. The Court held that the petitioner’s contention was tenable as penal statutes must be construed strictly, and the ambiguity in the executive order fixing two different ceiling prices for the same commodity should be resolved in favor of the accused. The Court rejected the respondent’s argument that the petitioner waived the objection by failing to raise it earlier. It ruled that, under the Rules of Court, the failure to move to quash waives all objections except when the information does not charge an offense, which was the effect of the petitioner’s claim. Furthermore, on appeal in criminal cases, the whole case is open for review, and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct errors, whether assigned or not, especially those that show the acts proved do not constitute the offense charged or affect fundamental rights. Given this disposition, the Court deemed it unnecessary to address the petitioner’s other assignment of error regarding the constitutionality of a provision of Republic Act No. 509 .