EN BANC
[G.R. No. 6133. August 9, 1911. ]
THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MELECIO ESTAVILLO, ET AL, Defendants-Appellants.
Miguel de Leon, for appellants Agcaoili and Felipe.
Irineo Javier, for other appellants.
Acting Attorney-General Harvey, for Appellees.
SYLLABUS
1. ELECTION LAW; DELINQUENT TAXES; SERVICE OF NOTICE. — Proof of service of the notice prescribed by section 16 of Act No. 1791, while essential in proceedings looking to the enforcement of a tax lien against real estate, is not essential where the only question involved is the delinquency of the person in whose name the tax is assessed.
2. ID.; QUALIFICATIONS OF ELECTOR; ELECTOR’S OATH. — Before any person is entitled to vote at any general or special election he must have, first, those qualifications set forth in the first paragraph of section 13 of the Election Law, and those set out in at least one of the three subsequent paragraphs; second, he must not have any of those disqualifications stated in section 17; and third, his name must appear upon the list of voters. He must swear, or affirm, that he has those qualifications, and none of the disqualifications. His oath on these points is not only material to the matters involved but is absolutely essential, for without taking the prescribed oath he can not vote, although he possesses those qualifications and none of the disqualifications.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; FALSE OATH. — If a person knowingly takes or subscribes any false oath, affidavit or affirmation in these proceedings in relation to any material matter, he then and there commits the crime defined and punished in paragraph 4 of section 30 of the Election Law; and it makes no difference whether he actually voted or not; desisting from voting will not blot out the crime already committed. If he commits the crime by having his name entered upon the registry, he is still disqualified as a voter, and if he thereafter casts his vote he commits another distinct and separate offense, which is that defined and penalized in the first paragraph of said section 30, and may be punished accordingly.
4. ID., ID.; BURDEN OF PROOF; FALSE OATH; PRESUMPTION. — It is incumbent upon the prosecution to show that the defendant was, in fact, delinquent in the payment of taxes at the time he took the elector’s oath, and, when this has been done, it may then be presumed that the defendant knowingly and intentionally took and subscribed the false oath, in the absence of satisfactory proof to the contrary.
5. ID.; ID., FALSE OATH; ADMISSION; DEFENSE. — When, as in this case, it is admitted or shown that the defendants swore that they were not delinquent when in fact they were, it is presumed that they did so knowingly and intentionally; and when they seek to justify themselves by an excuse, such excuse must be reasonable and adequate. If it appears that they voluntarily closed their eyes to the truth, or negligently failed to make inquiry to ascertain the truth of the matters to which they made oath then their ignorance or mistake of fact is not a sufficient defense.
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; FAILURE TO EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE. — In this case, it appears that some of the defendants did not make any inquiries to ascertain whether or not their taxes had been paid, but each took the elector’s oath in which he swore positively that these taxes had been paid. If the defendants had exercised due diligence, or had used the reasonable means within their power, they could have easily ascertained that they were delinquent. The excuses presented by the defendants are not sufficient to relieve them of criminal responsibility. If flimsy excuses are accepted by the courts, then that part of paragraph 4 of section 30 of the Election Law becomes practically a dead letter.
7. ID.; ID.; ID.; PROOF OF DUE DILIGENCE; BEST EVIDENCE. — Where it appears that one who has taken the elector’s oath was at that time delinquent in the payment of taxes but by way of excuse alleges that if the taxes were not paid his failure to pay was the result of mistake, or that he honestly believed that the taxes were paid at the time when he made oath to that effect, he must show that he used every reasonable means within his power to ascertain whether or not his taxes had been paid, and the best evidence of this fact is proof that he had in his possession or under his control an official tax receipt evidencing the payment of all taxes assessed against him, or "proof substantially as strong" that he had reason to believe such taxes had been paid.
2. ID.; QUALIFICATIONS OF ELECTOR; ELECTOR’S OATH. — Before any person is entitled to vote at any general or special election he must have, first, those qualifications set forth in the first paragraph of section 13 of the Election Law, and those set out in at least one of the three subsequent paragraphs; second, he must not have any of those disqualifications stated in section 17; and third, his name must appear upon the list of voters. He must swear, or affirm, that he has those qualifications, and none of the disqualifications. His oath on these points is not only material to the matters involved but is absolutely essential, for without taking the prescribed oath he can not vote, although he possesses those qualifications and none of the disqualifications.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; FALSE OATH. — If a person knowingly takes or subscribes any false oath, affidavit or affirmation in these proceedings in relation to any material matter, he then and there commits the crime defined and punished in paragraph 4 of section 30 of the Election Law; and it makes no difference whether he actually voted or not; desisting from voting will not blot out the crime already committed. If he commits the crime by having his name entered upon the registry, he is still disqualified as a voter, and if he thereafter casts his vote he commits another distinct and separate offense, which is that defined and penalized in the first paragraph of said section 30, and may be punished accordingly.
4. ID., ID.; BURDEN OF PROOF; FALSE OATH; PRESUMPTION. — It is incumbent upon the prosecution to show that the defendant was, in fact, delinquent in the payment of taxes at the time he took the elector’s oath, and, when this has been done, it may then be presumed that the defendant knowingly and intentionally took and subscribed the false oath, in the absence of satisfactory proof to the contrary.
5. ID.; ID., FALSE OATH; ADMISSION; DEFENSE. — When, as in this case, it is admitted or shown that the defendants swore that they were not delinquent when in fact they were, it is presumed that they did so knowingly and intentionally; and when they seek to justify themselves by an excuse, such excuse must be reasonable and adequate. If it appears that they voluntarily closed their eyes to the truth, or negligently failed to make inquiry to ascertain the truth of the matters to which they made oath then their ignorance or mistake of fact is not a sufficient defense.
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; FAILURE TO EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE. — In this case, it appears that some of the defendants did not make any inquiries to ascertain whether or not their taxes had been paid, but each took the elector’s oath in which he swore positively that these taxes had been paid. If the defendants had exercised due diligence, or had used the reasonable means within their power, they could have easily ascertained that they were delinquent. The excuses presented by the defendants are not sufficient to relieve them of criminal responsibility. If flimsy excuses are accepted by the courts, then that part of paragraph 4 of section 30 of the Election Law becomes practically a dead letter.
7. ID.; ID.; ID.; PROOF OF DUE DILIGENCE; BEST EVIDENCE. — Where it appears that one who has taken the elector’s oath was at that time delinquent in the payment of taxes but by way of excuse alleges that if the taxes were not paid his failure to pay was the result of mistake, or that he honestly believed that the taxes were paid at the time when he made oath to that effect, he must show that he used every reasonable means within his power to ascertain whether or not his taxes had been paid, and the best evidence of this fact is proof that he had in his possession or under his control an official tax receipt evidencing the payment of all taxes assessed against him, or "proof substantially as strong" that he had reason to believe such taxes had been paid.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
Of the sixteen accused charged in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte for a violation of the Election Law, two, Gregorio Julian and Francisco Agliam, were acquitted; Gelacio Felipe not being present when the case was called the first time he was tried separately. After due consideration, the trial court, on the 12th and 14th of January, 1910, found the defendants and appellants guilty as charged in the complaint and sentenced each to pay a fine of P200, to the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment at the rate of two pesos per day in case of insolvency, and to pay one-sixteenth part of the costs. From this judgment the fourteen defendants appealed.
The complaint in this case is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The undersigned charges Melecio Estavillo, Urbano Agcaoili, Mariano Erice, Victor Fontanilla, Mateo Guerrero, Elias Guieb, Gregorio Julian, jr., Gregorio Ruiz, Leopoldo Tongson, Andres Diego, Leon Bruno, Inocente Cayetano, Timoteo Mateo, Esteban Lampitoc, Gelacio Felipe, and Francisco Agliam, all residents of Laoag, Ilocos Norte, P. I., with violation of the Election Law (No. 1582), committed within the jurisdiction of this court, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"That, in order to be voters of said municipality in the past general election, held therein on November 2, 1909, the said accused, and each of them, did willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly, take a false oath on September 24, 1909, before the members of the election board of the first electoral section of said municipality, in that they stated, on taking their respective oaths, that they were not delinquent, yet knowing that they were, in the payment of the land taxes for the year 1909, on their respective property holdings situate: Those of Melecio Estavillo, Urbano Agcaoili, Francisco Agliam, Mariano Erice, Victor Fontanilla, Elias Guieb, Timoteo Mateo, Esteban Lampitoc, Gelacio Felipe, Gregorio Julian, jr., Gregorio Ruiz, Leopoldo Tongson and Leon Bruno in the said municipality of Laoag; those of Inocente Cayetano in the said municipality of Laoag and the municipality of Dingras; and those of Andres Diego in the municipality of Piddig, Ilocos Norte, P. I.; and thereby had their names registered, as they were registered, in the voting list prepared by the said election board, yet knowing that, as delinquents they had no right to be voters in the said election. In violation of section 30 of the Election Law."cralaw virtua1aw library
After the foregoing complaint was read to the defendants, and before pleading, all of the said defendants except Gregorio Felipe, Urbano Agcaoili, Gregorio Julian, jr., and Francisco Agliam, interposed a demurrer. The demurrer was overruled and the defendants required to plead. The following answers of the defendants appear of record:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"We, Melecio Estavillo, Urbano Agcaoili, Mariano Erice, Victor Fontanilla, Mateo Guerrero, Elias Guieb, Gregorio Ruiz, Leopoldo Tongson, Andres Diego, Leon Bruno, Inocente Cayetano, Timoteo Mateo, Esteban Lampitoc, and Gelacio Felipe, declare that we are not guilty, though it is true that we took the electors’ oath for the purpose of having our names registered in the censo electoral of the municipality of Laoag for the last general election, without having paid some of our land taxes upon our real property Situated in the municipalities mentioned in the complaint, but we did not knowingly swear falsely as stated in the complaint, neither did we knowingly cause our names to be inscribed in the censo electoral without authority to do so."cralaw virtua1aw library
In view of the pleas entered by the defendants, the fiscal rested his case after presenting the electors’ oath, which had been subscribed and sworn to by each of the defendants on the 24th of September, 1909. The proofs presented on behalf of each of the defendants, aside from the two who were acquitted, will be considered separately.
Melecio Estavillo testified that for several months before he took the electors’ oath he had been absent from Laoag and had requested his brother, Benito, to pay his taxes. Benito did not comply with this request so Estavillo paid said taxes on September 30th.
Mariano Erice testified that when he took the electors’ oath he did not know -that he was delinquent and that on finding out this fact he immediately paid his taxes.
Victor Fontanilla testified that he had been absent from Laoag working in the town of Vintar from May, 1909, until the 1st of October of the same year; that when he left Laoag he requested his wife to pay his land taxes but that she involuntarily failed to do so; that when he took the electors’ oath he did not know that his land taxes had not been paid, and that on discovering this fact he immediately paid them.
Mateo Guerrero testified that before the end of August, 1909, he authorized and directed his nephew, Leoncio Guerrero, to pay his land taxes in the towns of Laoag, Baccra and Dingras, and for this purpose turned over to him the sum of P5; that after so doing he left for the Cagayan valley and did not return until the 23d day of September of that year, and feeling sure that his nephew had paid the taxes on his land he took the electors’ oath; that he did not discover that he was delinquent until sometime in October and then he immediately paid his taxes. The testimony of this defendant is corroborated by that of his nephew, Leoncio, with reference to having received the P5 and having promised to pay his uncle’s taxes, but he said he did not comply with this request for the reason that his (Leoncio’s father) was sick and he had to remain with him.
Elias Guieb testified that he paid his land taxes before the election and therefore considered himself a qualified elector, notwithstanding the fact that he was delinquent at the time he took the electors’ oath.
Gregorio Ruiz stated that he did not know he was delinquent until he received, in the month of October, 1909, a notification from the municipal treasurer, and that on the receipt of this notification he paid his taxes.
Leandro Domingo, a municipal policeman, testified that he delivered, on the 4th of October, to Gregorio Ruiz a delinquent tax notice, issued by the municipal treasurer.
Leopoldo Tongson testified that when he took the electors’ oath he did not consider himself delinquent for the reason that he had sold, with a right to repurchase, his lands to Alejandra Mena on the 28th of April, 1908; that since that sale he had considered himself not responsible for the taxes, as they had been assumed by Mena and paid by her in the year 1908; and that these lands still appear in the tax books in his name as he had not had an opportunity to have same transferred to Alejandra Mena.
Alejandra Mena testified that it is a fact that she had purchased the lands of Leopoldo Tongson, with a right to redeem, and had assumed the payment of the land taxes and that she did pay the land taxes for the year 1908, but that she had not, up to the 24th of September, paid said taxes for the year 1909.
Andres Diego testified that he went to the provincial treasurer’s office in Ilocos Norte in May or June, 1909, for the purpose of paying his land tax; that he paid certain of his taxes and received a receipt therefor and that he at that time asked the clerk in the treasurer’s office whether or not he still owed other taxes and received a negative reply. Believing that he was not delinquent he took the electors’ oath, but after doing so he discovered that he still owed a part of his taxes and he then proceeded immediately to pay them.
Leon Bruno testified that when he took the electors’ oath he thought that his taxes had been paid as he had turned over the money to his nephew Alejandro Ricardo, with instructions to pay his taxes; that being a laborer in the fields he fully believed same had been paid, but as soon as he discovered this mistake he paid these taxes.
Alejandro Ricardo’s testimony was corroborative of the above. He stated that his uncle, Leon Bruno, upon the latter going away to harvest his palay, gave him the money to pay his taxes, but as the time for payment of the taxes had not then expired he involuntarily forgot to so pay them until the 27th of September, at which time they were paid.
Inocente Cayetano stated that he handed the money to pay his taxes to one Francisco Guerrero, with the request that he pay said taxes. Believing that his taxes had been fully paid by Guerrero he took the electors’ oath. Upon learning that they had not been paid he made inquiries of Guerrero and was informed that he, Guerrero, had been taken ill and for that reason had been unable to attend to the matter and further testified that he then satisfied these taxes.
Francisco Guerrero, corroborating the last witness, testified that his uncle, Inocente Cayetano, had given him on the 22d of September more than P5 for the payment of his taxes; that his uncle was very busy and had not the time to spare to attend to the matter; that the very day on which he received this money from his uncle he, Francisco, was taken ill and was unable to leave the house for the period of eight days; and that his uncle was engaged in working his lands and did not know of his, witness’s illness.
Timoteo Mateo testified that during the past two years his lands had been in the possession of one Antonio Fontanilla, but that his, witness’, name remained on the tax books. Believing that the taxes had been paid he took the electors’ oath. Upon learning later that they had not, he proceeded immediately to pay them.
Esteban Lampitoc testified that he took the electors’ oath before having paid his taxes, but that as he was later unable to satisfy said taxes he did not vote on election day.
Urbano Agcaoili testified that when he left Laoag in the month of August, 1909, he charged one Toribio Alvano with the payment of his taxes; that Alvano died in the month of December of that year; that believing his taxes to have been paid by Alvano he took the electors’ oath, and that later upon being informed of his delinquency he proceeded immediately to pay his taxes.
Gelacio Felipe testified that the real property upon which he is charged with not having paid the taxes is owned and possessed in common by himself and his two brothers; that it was the duty of his two brothers to pay the taxes on this land; that on account of his duties as a member of the insular police force it was impossible for him to attend to the payment of these taxes and that after receiving notice of his delinquency he did not vote.
The following questions are raised for determination:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. Should the demurrer have been sustained upon the ground that more than one crime is charged in the complaint?
2. Was it incumbent upon the prosecution to show that the notices provided in section 18 of Act No. 1791 had been given to each of these defendants before it can be said that they were delinquent?
3. If the defendants were delinquent at the time they took the electors’ oath, but paid their taxes before they voted, or did not vote at all, are they guilty of having violated the Election Law?
4. Must the prosecution show that the defendants at the time they took the electors’ oath did so knowing that they were delinquent, or is it presumed that they knew this fact?
5. If the latter is the rule, have the defendants made such a showing of good faith as to entitle them to an acquittal on the ground that they honestly believed they were not delinquent at the time they took the electors’ oath?
6. Should subsidiary imprisonment have been imposed in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 1732?
These questions will be passed upon in their order. Paragraphs 4 and 6, section 30 of the Election Law provide as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"(Par. 4.) Any person who knowingly takes or subscribes any false oath, affidavit, or affirmation before any election officer, or before any court or other officer in relation to any material fact in any registration or election proceeding, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three months nor more than five years, or by a fine of not less than two hundred pesos nor more than two thousand pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court.
"(Par. 6.) Any person who causes or attempts to cause his name to be registered, knowing that he is not a qualified voter in the district in which he registers, or who attempts to register, and any person who falsely represents himself as some other person to any election officer or board of registry, or who willfully gives a false answer relative to any matter relating to the registration of a voter or to the right of any person to vote, or who willfully aids or abets any other persons in doing any of the acts above mentioned, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one month nor more than one year, or by a fine of not less than one hundred pesos, or more than five hundred pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court."cralaw virtua1aw library
The fourth paragraph defines and fixes the penalty for the crime of perjury committed in an election proceeding, and the sixth paragraph makes it a crime for anyone who causes or attempts to cause his name to be registered, knowing that he is not a qualified voter.
It is alleged in the complaint that the defendants did knowingly take and subscribe to a false oath and by so doing had their names illegally entered upon the registry of qualified voters. The other allegation shows what the defendants did to consummate this crime and that the false oath was material. The defendants are charged with a single offense — the taking of a false oath in violation of section 30 of the Election Law — although in order to better establish the criminality of the defendants it became necessary for the prosecution to make a detailed statement of the various criminal acts committed by them. The allegation that the defendants caused their names to be entered upon the registry knowing that they were not qualified voters, might constitute, if standing alone, a separate offense, under paragraph 6, but in this case this allegation is used in a descriptive sense, describing or detailing the acts committed by the defendants, which, together with the other allegations, constitute the consummated crime of taking a false oath in violation of section 30 of the Election Law. No error, therefore, was committed in overruling the demurrer.
Sections 15, 16, 17, and 18 of Act No. 1791 are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"SEC. 15. The Governor-General shall, by executive order, upon recommendation of the provincial board, fix a term of three months in each year within which land taxes due the municipalities of the province shall be payable. Such executive order shall be issued before the thirty-first day of December of each year and at least three months before the beginning of the term during which such taxes shall be collected: Provided, That in case no action is taken by the provincial board and by the Governor-General the date fixed for the preceding year shall be held to be the date upon which the taxes shall be collected for the ensuing year. After such term is so fixed the provincial treasurer shall select a period of not less than one or more than three weeks during such term, within which said taxes shall be payable at the office of the provincial treasurer in the municipality, and such treasurer, or his deputy, shall attend and be present at said office during the usual office hours of each week during such period, exclusive of legal holidays, to receive payment of such taxes. The provincial treasurer shall fix the time of collection in the municipality with a view to economy in the administration and discharge of his duties and the convenience of the taxpayers of the municipality: Provided, That in municipalities in which the municipal treasurer is a deputy of the provincial treasurer the collection period for each year shall cover the entire three months ending the day before the tax becomes delinquent. Notice of the dates during which said taxes may be paid in each municipality shall be posted by the provincial treasurer at the main entrance of the provincial building and of all municipal buildings and in a public and conspicuous place in each barrio. Failure to pay the aforesaid taxes within the period specified shall subject the delinquent taxpayer to a penalty of twenty per centum of the amount of the original tax due, if paid within the first six months of delinquency, and a penalty of forty per centum of the original tax due if paid thereafter, to be collected at the same time and in the same manner as the original tax, and the notice shall so state. The penalty shall be accounted for by the collecting officer in the same manner as the tax.
"SEC. 16. Fifteen days after the tax shall become delinquent the provincial treasurer, or his deputy, shall prepare and sign a certified copy of the records of his office, showing the persons delinquent in payment of their taxes and the amounts of tax and penalty respectively due from each of them. He may proceed at once to seize a sufficient amount of the personal property of each delinquent, and, after due advertisement by notice stating the time, place, and cause of the sale, posted for ten days at the main entrance of the municipal building and at a public and conspicuous place in the barrio where the property was seized, unless redeemed as hereinafter provided, to sell at public auction, either at the main entrance of the municipal building or at the place where such property is seized, in his discretion, so much of the same as shall satisfy the tax, penalty, and costs of the seizure and sale, to the highest bidder. The certified copy of the provincial treasurer’s record of delinquents shall be the warrant for his proceedings, and the purchaser at such sale shall acquire an indefeasible title to the property sold.
"As soon as possible after the sale the provincial treasurer, or his deputy, shall make return of his proceedings and spread it upon his record. Any surplus resulting from the sale, over and above the tax, penalty, and costs, shall be returned to the delinquent taxpayer.
"SEC. 17. Taxes and penalties assessed against realty shall be a lien thereon, which shall be superior to all other liens, mortgages, or incumbrances of any kind whatsoever; shall be enforceable against the property whether in the possession o
