People v. Mata
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Jose Flor Mata, owner of a grocery store with a license to retail intoxicating liquors, was charged with unlawfully selling more than two decaliters of alcohol in a single sale on August 3, 1905, without a wholesale license. Evidence showed that Ng-Chin, representing Kwong-Ung-Lung & Co., purchased forty bottles of alcohol from Mata's store for resale. Each bottle contained approximately three-fourths of a liter, and the total quantity exceeded two decaliters. The sale was made and delivered on the same day, and payment was made upon delivery. Mata and his employees denied making any such sales. Procedural History: The accused was tried in the court below, found guilty, and sentenced to pay a fine of P200, with costs and subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment. The accused appealed this judgment. The Appeal: The appellant contested the conviction, arguing that the sale did not constitute a wholesale transaction requiring a wholesale license. The prosecution contended that the evidence conclusively established a single sale of alcohol exceeding two decaliters for resale, thus falling under the definition of a wholesale liquor dealer.
Issue(s)
Whether the sale of forty bottles of alcohol, each containing approximately three-fourths of a liter, constituting a total quantity exceeding two decaliters, made at a single transaction to a buyer for the purpose of resale, qualifies as a sale by a wholesale liquor dealer under Act No. 1189 and Act No. 1338. Whether subsidiary imprisonment can be imposed for the offense of selling liquor without a license when the penalizing statute does not expressly provide for it.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence by reversing the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment. The Court held that the sale in question constituted dealing in liquor by wholesale without a license, as defined by law. However, it reiterated its established jurisprudence that subsidiary imprisonment cannot be imposed for offenses penalized by acts of the Philippine Commission unless expressly provided for in the act, which was not the case here.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the sale of forty bottles of alcohol, totaling more than two decaliters, made in a single transaction to a buyer for the purpose of resale, clearly falls within the definition of a wholesale liquor dealer as provided by law. Specifically, Section 68, subsection 6 of Act No. 1189 defines a wholesale liquor dealer as any person who sells distilled spirits or wines in larger quantities than two decaliters at any one time. Furthermore, Section 1 of Act No. 1338 explicitly states that any person selling distilled spirits to other persons for the purpose of resale shall be deemed a wholesale liquor dealer, irrespective of the quantity sold at one time. The evidence presented conclusively established that the accused engaged in such a transaction without the necessary wholesale license, thereby violating the law. On Issue 2: The Court modified the sentence by reversing the subsidiary imprisonment. It reiterated its consistent ruling that subsidiary imprisonment cannot be imposed in cases of offenses penalized by acts of the Philippine Commission unless such a penalty is expressly provided for in the act itself. In this instance, the penalizing provisions of Act No. 1189 for the offense of selling liquor without a license did not include subsidiary imprisonment. Therefore, imposing it would be contrary to established legal precedent and the specific provisions of the law governing the offense.
Main Doctrine
Under Philippine law, specifically Act No. 1189 and Act No. 1338, any person who sells or offers for sale distilled spirits to other persons for the purpose of resale is deemed a wholesale liquor dealer, regardless of the quantity sold at any one time. Operating as such without the requisite license subjects the offender to penalties including fines and imprisonment, but subsidiary imprisonment cannot be imposed unless expressly provided by the penalizing statute.