People v. Yu
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Appellant Yu Bao, a person not a citizen of the Philippines, was charged with violating Republic Act No. 1180 for allegedly engaging in the retail business after being required to desist and surrender his permit. The information alleged that he obtained a permit on May 15, 1954, and continued to engage in retail business despite being ordered to stop by the City Treasurer of Quezon City. 2. Procedural History: The prosecution presented witnesses who identified Yu Bao's license application stating he was an alien, and testified that his store was found open for business on August 8, 1954, and again on October 12, 1954, after he was ordered to close it and surrender his permit. The defense moved for dismissal, arguing the law was unconstitutional and the evidence insufficient. The trial court denied the motion and found Yu Bao guilty as charged, sentencing him to three years of prision correccional, a fine, subsidiary imprisonment, and deportation. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified it to the Supreme Court due to the constitutional question raised. 3. The Petition: The appeal questioned the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1180 in its entirety and its penal provisions as applied to appellant's case, and also alleged insufficiency of evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether Republic Act No. 1180 is constitutional. Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved that appellant is an alien and continued to engage in the retail business after being ordered to desist. Whether the penal provisions of Republic Act No. 1180, as applied to appellant's case, constitute an ex post facto law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, finding the appellant guilty as charged. The Court upheld the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1180 and found sufficient evidence to establish the elements of the crime. The Court ruled that the penal provisions of the Act, as applied to the appellant, do not constitute an ex post facto law.
Ratio Decidendi
On the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1180: The Court reiterated its ruling in Ichong vs. Hernandez that Republic Act No. 1180 is constitutional. The law was enacted to remedy the threat to the national economy posed by alien dominance in the retail business, falling within the state's police power. It does not violate the equal protection clause as there are sufficient grounds to distinguish between aliens and citizens in regulated occupations, nor the due process clause, as the law is prospective and protects existing privileges reasonably. The wisdom of the law is within the legislature's prerogative, and it does not conflict with treaty obligations. On the sufficiency of evidence for alienage and engagement in retail business: The Court found the appellant's alienage sufficiently established by his own admission in the license application, where he stated he was a holder of an Alien Certificate of Registration. This admission, not contradicted by any evidence, is receivable and binds him. Furthermore, a statement in his motion for continuance, suggesting the case would need to be tried if the law was upheld, served as confirmatory proof of his alienage. Regarding engagement in retail business, prosecution witness Pedro S. Bolano testified that appellant was notified on August 8, 1954, to close his store and surrender his license, yet he was found still open for business on October 12, 1954. This defiance of the order and persistence in business after notice constituted a violation of Republic Act No. 1180, sufficient to support his conviction. On the alleged ex post facto nature of the penal provisions: The Court rejected the argument that the penal provisions of Republic Act No. 1180 constitute an ex post facto law. An ex post facto law makes an act innocent when done criminal and punishable thereafter. Republic Act No. 1180 does not penalize the appellant for engaging in retail business prior to its approval; rather, it penalizes his continued engagement thereafter. The fact that he was licensed before the law's approval is not a defense, as the law operated to revoke existing licenses to aliens, except those issued on or before May 15, 1954, to prevent a last-minute rush. The appellant's continued operation after notice, defying the order to close, was a deliberate choice, and he must abide by the consequences.
Main Doctrine
Republic Act No. 1180, regulating the retail business, is constitutional as it falls within the police power of the state to protect national economy from alien dominance. The penal provisions do not constitute an ex post facto law when applied to aliens who continued to engage in retail business after the law's effectivity, even if licensed prior to its approval.