CRIMINAL LAW; PROFITEERING; VIOLATION OF CEILING PRICES; ARTICLE SOLD OVERPRICED NOT INCLUDED IN THE LIST; EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 62 HAS NO RETROACTIVE EFFECT. — The appellant cannot be convicted of a violation of Executive Order NO. 24, as amended by Executive Orders Nos. 26 and 28, because a comb is not included in the list of commodities for which maximum prices are fixed therein. It is true that there are certain items in Executive Order No. 62 (which repeals all executive orders in conflict therewith) which may be construed as comprising combs, but appellant’s conviction cannot be predicated on said Executive Order No. 62 which was promulgated only on August 14, 1945, or subsequent to the sale by the appellant, on June 19, 1945, of the two combs in question. Besides, the information charges a violation of Executive Order No. 24, as amended by Executive Order No. 28.

For having sold on June 19, 1945, two combs at twenty-five centavos each, the defendant and appellant was convicted by the municipal court of the City of Zamboanga of a violation of Executive order No. 24, as amended by Executive Order No. 28, of the President of the Philippines, and sentenced to pay a fine of one hundred pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, plus the costs. Upon appeal to the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga, the appellant filed a motion to quash the information, on the ground that, under Executive Order No. 62, of August 14, 1945, amending Executive Order No. 24, as amended by Executive Order No. 28, a comb is not included among the articles with fixed ceiling prices, and that as the later Executive Order is favorable to the appellant, the same should be applied. This motion to quash was denied. Upon arraignment, the appellant entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to fifteen days of arresto menor and to pay the costs. The appellant has again appealed, although his counsel merely argues that the appealed judgment should be modified so as to impose only a minimum fine.

Upon the other hand, the Solicitor General recommends appellant’s acquittal. This recommendation is correct. We agree with the Solicitor General that the appellant cannot be convicted of a violation of Executive Order No. 24, as amended by Executive Orders Nos. 26 and 28, because a comb is not included in the list of commodities for which maximum prices are fixed therein. It is true that there are certain items in Executive Order No. 62 (which repeals all executive orders in conflict therewith) which may be construed as comprising combs, but appellant’s conviction cannot be predicated on said Executive Order No. 62 which was promulgated only on August 14, 1945, or subsequent to the sale by the appellant, on June 19, 1945, of the two combs in question. Besides, the information charges a violation of Executive Order No. 24, as amended by Executive Order No. 28.

The appeal judgment is therefore reversed and the appellant acquitted, with costs de oficio. So ordered.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.