G.R. No. 49304 ; November 17, 1944
JASU BHOPATRAI, petitioner, vs. THE HON. FRANCISCO ARELLANO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of Special Criminal Jurisdiction of Occidental Negros, respondent.

FACTS

The petitioner, Jasu Bhopatrai, was the manager of B.I. Sehwani & Co. in Bacolod, Occidental Negros. The company had a stock of 1,579 pairs of men’s shoes (928 leather/army shoes and 651 rubber/tennis shoes) purchased between June 5, 1943, and June 5, 1944. In June 1944, the Constabulary attempted to purchase 600 pairs of shoes from the petitioner but were told he had very few, with only six or seven pairs displayed. On August 8, 1944, upon further inquiry, the petitioner again claimed to have only about 30 pairs per store, but a search of a bodega revealed 582 hidden pairs, which were taken with an agreement for later payment. The petitioner later presented a bill at exorbitant prices (P100 per tennis shoe, P400 per army shoe). On August 17, after a test purchase where a pair was priced at P600, another search warrant execution uncovered 997 more hidden pairs, totaling 1,579 seized pairs. The petitioner had previously sold 210 pairs to the Constabulary in October 1943 at P29.50 per pair and admitted to hiding stock to realize a good profit. The respondent judge found the petitioner guilty of hoarding under Act No. 65 in connection with Ordinance No. 7 and sentenced him to two years imprisonment, a P50,000 fine, and confiscation of the shoes (except 90 pairs). The petitioner seeks annulment of the sentence, contending the court lacked jurisdiction because “commodities” under Act No. 65 and Executive Order No. 157 refer only to “prime commodities,” and shoes are not listed as such in Order No. 21 issued pursuant to Executive Order No. 210. The Solicitor General agrees with the petitioner.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge of the Court of Special Criminal Jurisdiction had jurisdiction to try and decide the case for hoarding shoes, i.e., whether the term “commodities” in Act No. 65 and Executive Order No. 157 is limited to “prime commodities” or includes commodities in general.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition, holding that the respondent judge had jurisdiction. The term “commodities” in Executive Order No. 157 (on price control) and Act No. 65 is not limited to “prime commodities.” Executive Order No. 157, which prohibits hoarding “commodities” for unjustifiable profit, does not contain such a limitation. Section 8 of Executive Order No. 157, as amended, distinguishes between “commodities” in general and “prime commodities” for purposes of disposal upon confiscation, implying its scope includes both. Act No. 65 incorporates the penal provisions of Executive Order No. 157 by reference, and Ordinance No. 7 grants exclusive jurisdiction to the special criminal courts over offenses penalized by Act No. 65 . The fact that shoes are not designated as “prime commodities” under Executive Order No. 210 (on distribution control) and its implementing Order No. 21 is irrelevant, as the petitioner was charged under Executive Order No. 157, a separate and distinct regulation dealing with price control of commodities in general. Therefore, the court had jurisdiction to try the case for hoarding shoes.