People v. Ong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Ong Tin, an alien subject of the Republic of China, was issued a permit (Permit No. 4360) to operate a 'sari-sari' store in Quezon City on May 27, 1954. On August 8, 1954, a city official informed Ong Tin that he was required to surrender his permit pursuant to a memorandum order of the Mayor, citing the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1180 pending resolution. Ong Tin refused, stating he could not surrender the permit due to the pending constitutional issue. He was later subpoenaed, warned against continuing his business, and given a week to decide. Ong Tin then informed the City Attorney he was unwilling to surrender the license and was ready to fight the case in court. On October 12, 1954, city officials observed the store still operating. Procedural History: Ong Tin was charged with violating Section 1, in relation to Section 1, of Republic Act No. 1180. The Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City Branch) found him guilty and sentenced him to three (3) years of prision correccional, a fine of P3,000, subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment, costs, and deportation after service of sentence. Ong Tin appealed. The Petition: Ong Tin appealed to the Supreme Court, raising issues concerning the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1180, its applicability to him despite having a prior permit, and the alleged confusion caused by city officials.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused without passing upon the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1180. Whether Republic Act No. 1180 is unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void. Whether Republic Act No. 1180, as applied to the accused, is unconstitutional. Whether Republic Act No. 1180 applies to the accused who obtained his permit before the law was approved and became effective. Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt, considering the alleged confusion regarding his continuance in the retail business.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court with modification regarding the penalty of imprisonment. The conviction for violation of Republic Act No. 1180 was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the trial court's alleged failure to pass upon the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1180 was "of no moment." This is because laws passed by Congress are presumed constitutional until declared otherwise by a final decision of the Supreme Court. The lower court's omission did not invalidate the conviction, as the constitutionality question was ultimately a matter for the Supreme Court to definitively resolve, which it had already done in a separate landmark case. The presumption of constitutionality allows lower courts to proceed with cases even if constitutional issues are raised, awaiting the final arbiter's decision. On Issue 2: The Court explicitly reiterated its previous ruling in Lao H. Ichong vs. Jaime Hernandez et al. (101 Phil., 1155) promulgated on May 31, 1957. In that decision, the Supreme Court had already thoroughly addressed and upheld the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1180. It affirmed that the law was a valid exercise of the State's police power, aimed at protecting the national economy from alien dominance and ensuring its security and future. The Court specifically found that the law did not violate the equal protection clause or the due process clause of the Constitution. On Issue 3: Consistent with its ruling on Issue 2, the Court found no merit in the contention that Republic Act No. 1180, as applied to Ong Tin, was unconstitutional. The law's constitutionality having been firmly established, its application to individuals falling under its purview, such as Ong Tin, was deemed valid. The law was designed to apply to aliens engaged in the retail trade, and Ong Tin's situation directly fell within the legislative intent and scope of the statute. Therefore, the application of a constitutional law to a specific case, where the facts clearly demonstrated a violation, inherently results in a constitutional application. On Issue 4: The Court rejected the argument that Republic Act No. 1180 did not apply to Ong Tin because he obtained his permit before the law became effective. The Court clarified that the acts constituting the crime for which Ong Tin was convicted were all executed after the effectivity of Republic Act No. 1180. Therefore, his conviction was not a result of applying an ex post facto law. The Court further reiterated established jurisprudence that the granting of a license does not create irrevocable rights, nor does it constitute property or property rights, citing cases such as Pedro vs. Provincial Board of Rizal and Vinco vs. Municipality of Hinigaran. Thus, continuing to operate the store after the law's effectivity constituted a direct violation, regardless of the prior issuance of a permit. On Issue 5: The Court found no basis to hold that the alleged "confusion which reigned in the mind of the accused as a consequence of divergent views held by the City Mayor and the City Attorney" negated his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The facts clearly showed that Ong Tin was informed of the requirement to surrender his permit, subpoenaed, warned, and yet consciously decided not to surrender his license and continued to operate his business after the law's effectivity. His deliberate refusal to comply and his readiness "to fight the case in court" demonstrated knowledge and intent, rather than mere confusion, making his violation willful.
Main Doctrine
Republic Act No. 1180, regulating the retail business, is a valid exercise of police power to protect national economy from alien dominance and does not violate constitutional guarantees. Operating a retail business without complying with the law after its effectivity, even with a prior permit, constitutes a violation.