People vs. Tiu Ua, 96 Phil. 738, 741

That on or about the 1st day of November, 1950, in Pasay City, Philippines, the above named accused, Tiu Ua, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously violate the provisions of Republic Act No. 509 by selling a can of powdered Klim milk for P2.20, to Eusebio Perez, when the ceiling price for that commodity was P1.80 only.

After the trial the accused was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of P5,000, or, in case of insolvency, to suffer the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment, and to pay the costs. In addition to this penalty the trial court declared that the accused, being an alien, "shall be upon, upon final conviction, subject to immediate deportation without the necessity of any further proceedings on the part of the Deportation Board.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual 

ISSUES

1. The trial court erred in not holding that the present case is one of entrapment the prosecution of which should not have been sustained on grounds of public policy, and that it was not established beyond reasonable doubt by credible evidence, and consequently, erred in not acquitting the accused.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law ly

II. The trial court erred in imposing a penalty wholly disproportionate to the offense, and therefore unconstitutional as cruel and unusual and shocking to the conscience.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

III. The trial court erred in not declaring Republic Act No. 509 unconstitutional in so far as it imposes penalties wholly disproportionate to the offenses sought to be punished, and consequently violative of the due process and equal protection clauses and of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments in the Constitution.

RATIO

In the second assignment of error the appellant maintains that the punishment imposed by the trial court is unconstitutional as being cruel and unusual and shocking to the conscience.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

With regard to the fine, it should be considered that Congress thought it necessary to repress profiteering with a heavy fine so that dealers would not take advantage of the critical condition of the country to make unusual profits. It is true that in specific individual cases the profit made is small but when it is remembered that these individual transactions are numerous and make a great total and affect the poor people in general, it can be easily seen that the raise in the price above that authorized by law, causes a great hardship to the country. The courts cannot interfered with the discretion of the legislative body in enforcing a public policy unless there has been a clear violation of the Constitution.