Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

March 1915 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

Custom Search Jurisprudence
Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1915 > March 1915 Decisions >
G.R. No. 8646 March 31, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO SIY CONG BIENG, ET
ChanRobles Professional AL.
Review, Inc.

030 Phil 577:

EN BANC
ChanRobles On-Line Bar
Review
[G.R. No. 8646. March 31, 1915. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BENITO SIY CONG BIENG and

Co KONG, Defendants. BENITO SIY CONG BIENG, Appellant.

Tirso de Irureta Goyena for Appellant.

Attorney-General Avanceña for Appellee.

SYLLABUS

1. FOOD; SALE OF PROHIBITED ARTICLES; EVIDENCE OF KNOWLEDGE OF

ADULTERATION. — Under the Philippine Pure Food and Drugs Act, proof of the fact
of the sale of prohibited drugs and food products is sufficient to sustain a

ChanRobles CPA Review conviction of a violation of the statute, without proof of guilty knowledge of the fact

Online of adulteration or criminal intent in the making of the sale other than that
necessarily implied by the statute in the doing of the prohibited act.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTS OF EMPLOYEE. — In construing and

enforcing the provisions of this Act, a principal may be held criminally liable for the
act, omission or failure of his agent or employee within the scope of his
employment or office; and in the case at bar the principal was properly held
criminally responsible for the prohibited sale of adulterated coffee by his employee,
in the scope of his employment, although it affirmatively appeared that the
principal had no guilty knowledge of the fact that the coffee was adulterated. or
that adulterated coffee had been sold by his agent.

DECISION

ChanRobles Special Lecture

Series CARSON, J. :

Benito Siy Cong Bieng and Co Kong, the defendants in this action, were convicted
in the court below of a violation of section 7 of Act No. 1655 of the Philippine
Commission, known as the Pure Food and Drugs Act, and each of them was
sentenced to pay a fine of P10 and one-half of the costs of the proceedings. From
this judgment the defendant Benito Siy Cong Bieng alone appealed. The only error
assigned by counsel for the appellant in his brief on this appeal is as follows: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The court erred in holding that the accused Benito Siy Cong Bieng had violated the
provision of Act No. 1655 and was criminally responsible, in the same way as his
agent Co Kong, notwithstanding the fact that he had never had any knowledge of
the acts performed by the latter, which are the subject matter of the complaint, to
wit, sale of adulterated coffee or of any kind of coffee." cralaw virtua1aw library

SPONSORED SEARCHES
The record discloses that Co Kong, while in charge of appellant’s tienda (store) and
federal cases acting as his agent and employee, sold, in the ordinary course of business, coffee
which had been adulterated by the admixture of peanuts and other extraneous
criminal case
substances. The circumstances under which the sale was made clearly appear from

company law cases the following statement of facts which was read into the record under an
agreement signed by both defendants and by all the attorneys in the case: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

legal court cases

"It is hereby stipulated and admitted by both parties that the defendant Benito Siy
law of contract
Cong Bieng is the owner of tienda No. 326, Calle Santo Cristo, and that Co Kong is
his agent duly installed therein and performing the services of his employment;
SPONSORED SEARCHES
that on July 2, 1912, the defendant Co Kong in the ordinary course of the business
legal court cases
sold a certain food product designated by the name of coffee; that said coffee was
adulterated and falsely branded, as alleged in the complaint; ’that the defendant
law of contract
Benito Siy Cong Bieng really had no knowledge that his agent Co Kong would sell
evidence act said coffee or any special brand of coffee, such as the aforesaid adulterated and
falsely branded coffee, as is specified in the complaint; it was not manufactured or
legal appeals put up by or with the knowledge of the defendant Benito Siy Cong Bieng;’ and the
defendants Benito Siy Cong Bieng and Co Kong furthermore agree that this
legal briefs
stipulation shall have the effects of, and may be used by the prosecution as, an
admission of the facts herein established."
SPONSORED SEARCHES
cralaw virtua1aw library

legal appeals
The only questions, therefore, which need be considered on this appeal are: first,

legal briefs whether a conviction under the Pure Food and Drugs Act can be sustained where it
appears that the sale of adulterated food products charged in the information was
al held made without guilty knowledge of the fact of adulteration, and without conscious
intent to violate the statute; and second, whether a principal can be convicted
criminal crime
under the Act for a sale of adulterated goods made by one of his agents or
employees in the regular course of his employment, but without knowledge on the
criminal offense
part of the principal of the fact that the goods sold were adulterated.

While it is true that, as a rule and on principles of abstract justice, men are not and
should not be held criminally responsible for acts committed by them without guilty
March-1915 Jurisprudence
knowledge and criminal or at least evil intent (Bishop’s New Crim. Law, Vol. I, sec.
286), the courts have always recognized the power of the legislature, on grounds
of public policy and compelled by necessity, "the great master of things," to forbid
G.R. No. 10181 March 2, 1915
in a limited class of cases the doing of certain acts, and to make their commission
- UNITED STATES v. MARIANO
criminal without regard to the intent of the doer. (U. S. v. Go Chico, 14 Phil. Rep.,
CRAME
128; U. S. v. Ah Chong, 15 Phil. Rep., 488.) In such cases no judicial authority has
the power to require in the enforcement of the law, such knowledge or motive to
030 Phil 1
be shown. As was said in the case of State v. McBrayer (98 N. C., 619, 623): jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

G.R. No. 10341 March 3, 1915

- UNITED STATES v. FLORENCIO "It is a mistaken notion that positive, willful intent as distinguished from a mere

GOMEZ intent, to violate the criminal law, is an essential ingredient in every criminal
offense, and that where there is the absence of such intent there is no offense; this

030 Phil 22 is especially so as to statutory offenses. When the statute plainly forbids an act to
be done, and it is done by some person, the law implies conclusively the guilty

G.R. No. 7992 March 4, 1915 - intent, although the offender was honestly mistaken as to the meaning of the law

GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. he violates. When the language is plain and positive, and the offense is not made

PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV. CO., to depend upon the positive, willful intent and purpose, nothing is left to

ET AL. interpretation." cralaw virtua1aw library

030 Phil 27 In the case of United States v. Go Chico (14 Phil Rep., 128, 138) it was said that:
"Care must be exercised in distinguishing the difference between the intent to
G.R. No. 9906 March 5, 1915 - commit the crime and the intent to perpetrate the act." cralaw virtua1aw library

YAM KA LIM v. INSULAR

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS The intent to commit an act prohibited and penalized by statute must, of course,
always appear before a conviction upon a charge of the commission of a crime can
030 Phil 46 be maintained. But whether or not the existence of guilty knowledge and criminal
or evil intent, that is to say, the conscious intent or will to violate the statute, must
G.R. No. 8667 March 6, 1915 - also appear in order to sustain a judgment of conviction is a question which must
FERNANDEZ HERMANOS v. be determined in each case by reference to the language of the statute defining
INSULAR COLLECTOR OF the offense.
CUSTOMS

The growing interest manifested during the past decade on the subject of pure
030 Phil 51 food has been reflected in the passage of the Federal Pure Food and Drugs Act of
June 30,1906, and in the passage of similar acts by a number of the state
G.R. No. 10228 March 6, 1915 legislatures. The Philippine Pure Food and Drugs Act (No. 1655) is, with some slight
- UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO modifications, substantially identical with the Federal act. Its prohibitions of the
VILLORENTE, ET AL. sales of adulterated foodstuffs and drugs are absolute and general. Indeed, they
could hardly be expressed in terms more explicit and comprehensive. The statutory
030 Phil 59 definition of the offense embraces no word implying that the forbidden act shall be
done knowingly or willfully, and if it did, the design and purpose of the Act would in
G.R. No. 9816 March 10, 1915 many instances be thwarted and practically defeated. The intention of the
- FELIX ULLMAN v. VICENTE Legislature is plain that persons engaged in the sale of drugs and food products
HERNAEZ cannot set up their ignorance of the nature and quality of the commodities sold by
them as a defense. We conclude therefore that under the Act proof of the fact of
030 Phil 69 the sale of adulterated drugs and food products as prohibited by the Act is
sufficient to sustain a conviction without proof of guilty knowledge of the fact of
G.R. No. 9563 March 11, 1915 adulteration, or criminal intent in the making of the sale other than that necessarily
- UNITED STATES v. ALFONSO implied by the statute in the doing of the prohibited act.
DE OCAMPO, ET AL.

Counsel for appellant has cited a number of cases touching the various phases of
030 Phil 71 the question now under discussion, but it will be sufficient for our purposes to limit
ourselves to some reference to the cases wherein prosecutions have arisen upon
G.R. No. 9874 March 13, 1915 charges of violations of pure food laws. In some of these statutes guilty knowledge
- UNITED STATES v. CARLOS and criminal intent is made essential to the commission of the offense prohibited,
GARCIA and of course where such is the case guilty knowledge and criminal intent must
appear before a conviction can be sustained. But the overwhelming weight of
030 Phil 74 authority construing statutes, generally known as pure food laws, is to the effect
that in the absence of language in the statute making guilty knowledge and
G.R. No. 10215 March 13, criminal intent an essential element of the acts prohibited thereunder, it is not
1915 - UNITED STATES v. R. necessary to charge or to prove that prohibited sales of food products are made
McCULLOUGH DICK with guilty knowledge or criminal intent in order to sustain convictions under such
statutes.
030 Phil 76

Supported by numerous citations of authority, Thornton in his work on "Pure Food

G.R. No. 10263 March 13, and Drugs," says with reference to the Federal act of June 30, 1906: "The intent
1915 - UNITED STATES v. JAIME with which these several violations of the statute is done is immaterial. There may
FILART, ET AL. be no intention to violate the statute, yet if the act produces the result forbidden
by the statute, an offense has been committed." (Sec. 119, p. 202.)
030 Phil 80

And again: "Repeated statements have been made in this work that an intent to
G.R. No. 9900 March 15, 1915 violate the statute is not necessary in order to incur the infliction of a penalty for
- UNITED STATES v. PATRICIO C. the sale or keeping for sale [of] adulterated or impure food or drugs. An act
GUARIN performed with no intent to violate a purefood statute is just as much a crime
under this Federal Pure Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, as if a criminal
030 Phil 85 design to violate it was intended and entertained at the time of its performance.
This rule extends to sales or other acts by servants." (Sec. 512, p. 613.)
G.R. No. 9476 March 17, 1915
- ANTONIO M. BARRETTO v. And again, at section 55g, the same author, citing numerous authorities, shows
PHIL. PUBLISHING CO. that in prosecutions for the sale of adulterated milk it has been quite uniformly
held that it is no defense that the accused had no knowledge of the fact of
030 Phil 88 adulteration, and that it need not be alleged or proven that he had such
knowledge, in the absence of special words in the statute requiring the sale to be
G.R. No. 9306 March 18, 1915 made with knowledge of the adulteration.
- UNITED STATES v. BASILIO
VILLACORTA In the case of People v. Kibler (106 N. Y., 321), the court said: "It is notorious that
the adulteration of food products has grown to proportions so enormous as to
030 Phil 108 menace the health and safety of the people. Ingenuity keeps pace with greed, and
the careless and heedless consumers are exposed to increasing perils. To redress
G.R. No. 9842 March 18, 1915 such evils is a plain duty but a difficult task. Experience has taught the lesson that
- UNITED STATES v. FAUSTINO repressive measures which depend for their efficiency upon proof of the dealer’s
CORONEL knowledge and of his intent to deceive and defraud are of little use and rarely
accomplish their purpose. Such an emergency may justify legislation which throws
030 Phil 112 upon the seller the entire responsibility of the purity and soundness of what he
sells and compels him to know and to be certain." cralaw virtua1aw library

G.R. No. 9943 March 18, 1915

- VICENTE SISON, ET AL. v.
Upon the question of the liability of the master for the violation of a pure food law
JULIAN AMBALADA
by his clerk, committed without his knowledge or consent, the leading case would
seem to be Groff v. State (171 Ind., 547). In that case the court said: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

030 Phil 118

"The distribution of impure or adulterated food for consumption is an act perilous

G.R. No. 8470 March 19, 1915
to human life and health; hence, a dangerous act, and cannot be made innocent
- TOMAS SISON v. LEODEGARIO
and harmless by the want of knowledge or the good faith of the seller.
AZARRAGA

"Guilty intent is not an element in the crime . . . hence, the rule that governs in
030 Phil 129
that large class of offenses, which rests upon criminal intent, has no application
here. Cases like this are founded largely upon the principle that he who voluntarily
G.R. No. 8919 March 19, 1915
deals in perilous articles must be cautious how he deals.
- VICENCIA D. CASIANO v.
SIMONA SAMANIEGO
"The sale of oleomargarine in an adulterated form, or as a substitute for butter, is a
crime against the public health. Whoever, therefore, engages in its sale, or in the
030 Phil 135
sale of any article interdicted by the law, does so at his peril, and impliedly
undertakes to conduct it with whatever degree of care is necessary to secure
G.R. No. 9086 March 19, 1915
compliance with the law. He may conduct the business himself, or by clerks or
- MARIA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v.
agents, but if he chooses the latter the duty is imposed upon him to see to it that
CLEMENTE DAYRIT
those selected by him to sell the article to the public obey the law in the matter of
selling; otherwise, he, as the principal and the responsible proprietor of the
030 Phil 139
business, is liable for the penalty imposed by the statute." cralaw virtua1aw library

G.R. No. 10213 March 19,

1915 - NGO TIM v. INSULAR See also the cases of State v. Bockstruck (136 Mo., 335), and Commonwealth v.

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Vieth (155 Mass., 442).

030 Phil 144 Labatt in his work on Master and Servant (vol. 7, sec. 2569) discusses the general
rule as to liability of the master for criminal conduct of his servant as follows:

G.R. No. 10490 March 19, "Although the courts are in accord as to the master’s liability when he participates

1915 - FRANCISCO BASTIDA v. in the criminal conduct of his servant, there is a decided conflict of opinion as to his

GREGORIO PEÑALOSA responsibility when the act of the servant is without the master’s knowledge or
connivance and against his express orders. These cases can be reconciled to some

030 Phil 148 extent by the difference in the language employed in the statutes to define the
various offenses, and the policy of the statutes themselves. Wherever guilty intent

G.R. No. 9571 March 20, 1915 is an essential ingredient of the crime, it would be impossible to fix responsibility

- UNITED STATES v. YEE CHUNG upon the master for his servant’s transgression of the law, if the master did not
harbor such an intent. . . . In most instances where the master is held to be

030 Phil 151 responsible criminally for the wrongful conduct of his servant, it is on the theory
that the act complained of is positively forbidden, and therefore guilty intention is

G.R. No. 8853 March 22, 1915 not essential to a conviction of the offense." cralaw virtua1aw library

- ALDECOA & CO. v. WARNER,

BARNES & CO. And in section 2573, supported by numerous citations from cases dealing with
infringement of liquor laws and pure food laws, he says: "If certain acts are
030 Phil 153 positively forbidden by statute, and it is the policy of the law to prohibit them,
irrespective of what the motive or intent of the person violating the statute may
G.R. No. 9954 March 22, 1915 be, no principle of justice is violated by holding the master responsible for the
- CARLOS DE LIZARDI v. F. M. conduct of his servant on the same theory that he is held responsible civilly." cralaw virtua1aw library

YAPTICO

Upon the reasoning and the authority of the cases there referred to, we are of
030 Phil 211 opinion that even in the absence of express provisions in the statute, the appellant
in the case at bar was properly held criminally responsible for the act of his agent
G.R. No. 10237 March 22, in selling the adulterated coffee, and indeed it seems quite clear that his liability is
1915 - UNITED STATES v. LIM expressly contemplated under the provisions of section 12 of Act No. 1655 of the
TIGDIEN, ET AL. Philippine Commission, which is as follows: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

030 Phil 222

"The word ’person’ as used in this Act shall be construed to import both the plural
and the singular, as the case demands, and shall include corporations, companies,
G.R. No. 6889 March 23, 1915
societies, associations, and other commercial or legal entities. When construing
- JOAQUIN IBAÑEZ DE ALDECOA
and enforcing the provisions of this Act, the act, omission, or failure of any officer,
Y PALET, ET AL. v. HONGKONG &
agent, or other person acting for or employed by any corporation, company,
SHANGHAI BANKING CORP., ET
society, association, or other commercial or legal entity, within the scope of his
AL.
employment or office, shall in every case be also deemed to be the act, omission,
or failure of such corporation, company, society, association, or other commercial
030 Phil 228
or legal entity, as well as that of the person." cralaw virtua1aw library

G.R. No. 8437 March 23, 1915

It is contended that the express provisions of this section, referring as they do to
- HONGKONG & SHANGHAI
the liability of any "corporation, society, association, or other commercial or legal
BANKING CORP. v. ALDECOA &
entity," do not include cases of agency of a private individual. We are of opinion,
CO., ET AL.
however, that the words "commercial or legal entity" as used in this provision is
sufficiently comprehensive to include a private individual engaged in business who
030 Phil 255
makes use of an agent or agents, employee or employees, in the conduct of his
business; and even if this position could be successfully controverted we would still
G.R. No. 8677 March 24, 1915
be of opinion that the provisions of this section clearly and definitely indicate the
- MACARIO FACUNDO v.
policy of the statute to prohibit and penalize the acts forbidden thereunder,
HERMENEGILDA MACAPAGAL, ET
irrespective of what the motive or intent of the person violating the statute may
AL.
be, and to hold the master in all cases responsible for the act, omission or failure
of his servant, within the scope of his employment, whether he be a private
030 Phil 284
individual, a corporation, company, society, association, or other commercial or
legal entity.
G.R. No. 9512 March 24, 1915
- UNITED STATES v. EMILIO
We conclude that the judgment of conviction entered in the court below should be
SEVILLA, ET AL.
affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the Appellant. So ordered.

030 Phil 288

Torres, Johnson and Trent, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 8185 March 25, 1915

Arellano, C.J., and Araullo, J., dissent.
- UNITED STATES v. EMILIO
VALDEZ, ET AL.
Separate Opinions

030 Phil 293

MORELAND, J., dissenting:

G.R. No. 9004 March 25, 1915
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

- GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

v. ROMAN CATH. BISHOP OF I do not agree to a conviction under Act No. 1655, it not being applicable to the

NUEVA CACERES case.

030 Phil 338

G.R. No. 9279 March 25, 1915

- UNITED STATES v. SATURNINO Back to Home | Back to Main
CAPILLO, ET AL.

030 Phil 349

G.R. No. 9511 March 25, 1915

- UNITED STATES v. FELIX
LUSTRADA

030 Phil 356

G.R. No. 9662 March 25, 1915

- LEE WING SENG v. INSULAR
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

030 Phil 363

G.R. No. 9741 March 25, 1915

- JOSE PIÑON, ET AL. v.
DOLORES R. DE OSORIO

030 Phil 365

G.R. No. 9869 March 25, 1915

- UNITED STATES v. FEDERICO
CAÑET

030 Phil 371

G.R. No. 9972 March 25, 1915

- UNITED STATES v. JUAN
SUMULONG

030 Phil 381

G.R. No. 10241 March 25,

1915 - MERALCO v. BOARD OF
PUBLIC UTILITY
COMMISSIONERS

030 Phil 387

G.R. No. 9720 March 26, 1915

- TRINIDAD CARRANCEJA v. P.
M. MOIR, ET AL.

030 Phil 392

G.R. No. 10252 March 26,

1915 - UNITED STATES v. HON.
JOSE C. ABREU, ET AL.

030 Phil 402

G.R. No. 9144 March 27, 1915

- UNITED STATES v. VENANCIO
DE GUZMAN

030 Phil 416

G.R. Nos. 9638 & 9789 March

27, 1915 - CHUN TOY v.
INSULAR COLLECTOR OF
CUSTOMS

030 Phil 465

G.R. No. 8312 March 29, 1915

- UY TAM, ET AL. v. THOMAS
LEONARD, ET AL.

030 Phil 471

G.R. No. 8346 March 30, 1915

- GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v.
ORIA HERMANOS & CO.

030 Phil 491

G.R. No. 8822 March 30, 1915

- BIBIANA ISAAC v. H. W. BRAY,
ET AL.

030 Phil 533

G.R. No. 9401 March 30, 1915

- ANTONINA LAMPANO v.
PLACIDA A. JOSE, ET AL.

030 Phil 537

G.R. No. 9453 March 30, 1915

- AUGUSTO TUASON v. A. S.
CROSSFIELD

030 Phil 543

G.R. No. 9522 March 30, 1915

- UNITED STATES v. CASTOR
REYES, ET AL.

030 Phil 551

G.R. No. 9706 March 30, 1915

- UNITED STATES v. MARIANO
AZAJAR

030 Phil 556

G.R. No. 10577 March 30,

1915 - T. L. McGIRR v. L.
PORTER HAMILTON, ET AL.

030 Phil 563

G.R. No. 6355 March 31, 1915

- ROMAN CATHOLIC
ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v.
INSULAR GOV’T., ET AL.

030 Phil 573

G.R. No. 8646 March 31, 1915

- UNITED STATES v. BENITO SIY
CONG BIENG, ET AL.

030 Phil 577

G.R. No. 9043 March 31, 1915

- ANIANO MAGNO, ET AL. v.
SERVANDO CASTRO, ET AL.

030 Phil 585

G.R. No. 9064 March 31, 1915

- ROMAN CATHOLIC
ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v.
MACARIO ARNEDO, ET AL.

030 Phil 593

G.R. No. 9069 March 31, 1915

- MUN. OF CAVITE v. HILARIA
ROJAS, ET AL.

030 Phil 602

G.R. No. 9126 March 31, 1915

- NEMESIO MONTEVERDE v.
NAKATA

030 Phil 608

G.R. No. 9150 March 31, 1915

- MARIANO LEANO v. ARCADIO
LEAÑO

030 Phil 612

G.R. No. 9309 March 31, 1915

- GAN BUN CHO v. INSULAR
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

030 Phil 614

G.R. No. 9370 March 31, 1915

- K. S. YOUNG v. MIDLAND
TEXTILE INS. CO.

030 Phil 617

G.R. No. 9734 March 31, 1915

- JUAN BAHIA v. FAUSTA
LITONJUA, ET AL.

030 Phil 624

G.R. No. 6665 March 30, 1912

CLEMENTE MANOTOC v. FLORA

CHOCO Y REYES, ET AL.

030 Phil 628

G.R. No. 8095 November 5,

1914 & March 31, 1915 - F. C.
FISHER v. YANGCO STEAMSHIP
COMPANY

031 Phil 1

G.R. No. 9786 March 31, 1915

- ARSENIA CHAVES, ETAL v.
MLA. ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND
LIGHT CO.

031 Phil 47

G.R. No. 9983 March 31, 1916

RUFINO TAN GUAN SIEN v.

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

031 Phil 56

G.R. No. 10038 March 31,

1915 - MARCELO DE LEON v.
DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

031 Phil 60

G.R. No. 10087 March 31,

1916

RUFINA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL v. SI
PENG, ETAL

031 Phil 65

G.R. No. 10105 March 31,

1915 - RAFAEL MOLINA
SALVADOR v. ENRIQUE F.
SOMES

031 Phil 76

G.R. No. 10198 March 31,

1915 - UNITED STATES v.
CIPRIANO AGCAOILI

031 Phil 91

G.R. No. 10292 March 31,

1915 - EUSTAQUIO CONCHADA
v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

031 Phil 94

G.R. No. 10385 March 31,

1915 - UNITED STATES v. LIM
KIU ENG

031 Phil 115

G.R. No. 10713 March 31,

1915 - MLA. RAILROAD CO., ET
AL v. HON. ISIDRO PAREDES

031 Phil 118

Copyright © 1995 - 2020 REDiaz