G.R. No. L-5790 April 17, 1953
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PABLO DE LA CRUZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Pablo de la Cruz, a store owner in Sampaloc, Manila, was convicted in the Court of First Instance of Manila for selling a six-ounce tin of “Carnation” milk for thirty centavos, which was ten centavos above the ceiling price of twenty centavos fixed by Executive Order No. 331 issued under Republic Act No. 509 . The sale was made to Eduardo Bernardo, Jr. on October 14, 1950. The trial court sentenced him to five years imprisonment, a fine of five thousand pesos, costs, and barred him from engaging in wholesale and retail business for five years. On appeal, he argued that the charge was fabricated, that the punishment was disproportionate and unconstitutional, and that Republic Act No. 509 prescribed excessive penalties.

ISSUE

The main issues are: (1) whether the charge was fabricated or entrapment was involved; (2) whether the penalty imposed was cruel, unusual, or excessive, and thus unconstitutional; and (3) whether Republic Act No. 509 is invalid for prescribing excessive penalties.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. On the first issue, the Court found the charge was established beyond reasonable doubt and not a fabrication. The act of selling to the public did not constitute entrapment as no inducement was shown. On the constitutional issues, the Court discussed but did not definitively rule on whether the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines applies to penalties that are disproportionate in duration or amount. The Court noted opposing theories on whether the prohibition restricts only legislation or also judicial discretion in imposing penalties within statutory limits. Assuming without holding that an excessively long prison term might clash with the Constitution, the Court found that under the circumstances—considering the national policy against profiteering on essential foodstuffs and the need to maintain price controls—the penalty was not necessarily cruel or unusual. However, moved by the appellant’s modest circumstances and the small profit involved, the Court exercised its discretion under the statute to reduce the penalty. The imprisonment was reduced to six months and the fine to two thousand pesos, while affirming the rest of the decision, including the five-year bar from business.