Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1914 > March 1914 Decisions > G.R. No. 9348 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ELEUTERO MANTE

027 Phil 134:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 9348. March 14, 1914. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ELEUTERO MANTE, Defendant-Appellant.

Ciriaco K. Kangleon for Appellant.

Attorney-General Villamor for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; EVIDENCE; KNOWLEDGE OF CRIMINAL ACTS. — It is a general rule that, where a statute makes a specific act penal when knowingly done and the knowledge of the accused cannot be directly proved but is a matter of inference, it is only necessary to show that a prudent man could and would have ascertained from available sources of information, that the act complained of, under the existing circumstances, was contrary to law.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; WHEN KNOWLEDGE CANNOT BE IMPUTED. — Conversely, if a man commits the act upon information obtained from a reliable source which would appeal to a reasonable man and causes him to perform the act on the strength of such information, believing that circumstances existed which rendered it lawful, he ought not to suffer the penalty. For, if a false report of the existence of a fact reaches a man through an agency which he has good and sufficient reason to rely upon, he has a right to assume its existence, and cannot be said to know that it does not exist.

3. WITNESSES, INTERESTED; CREDIBILITY. — Testimony of interested witnesses, while rightly subjected to careful scrutiny, should not be rejected on the ground of bias alone. If their testimony is reasonable and consistent and is not contradicted by evidence from any reliable source, there is no reason, as a general rule, for not accepting it.

4. ELECTION LAW; OATH OF ELECTIONS AND OFFICERS; DELINQUENT TAXES; PRIMA FACIE CASE. — When the prosecution has proved the exercises of suffrage rights or of the assumption of official duties, as the case may be, by the defendant, and the delinquency of his taxes, it has made a prima facie case. Under such circumstances it devolves upon the accused at least to raise a reasonable doubt of his knowledge of such delinquency.

5. ID.; ID.; ID. — The facts of this case rebut the inference that the defendant took the oath of an elective office knowing at the time that he was delinquent in his taxes.


D E C I S I O N


TRENT, J. :


The appellant was convicted of taking the oath of office as a municipal councilman and discharging the duties thereof, knowing at the time that he was not qualified to hold such office, in that he was delinquent in the payment of his taxes.

The prosecution introduced the appellant’s oath of office, a portion of the minutes of a session of the municipal council showing that he had taken part therein, and the official record of plaintiff’s tax receipt bearing a date subsequent to the other two document, and then rested. The appellant sought to show that at the time he took the oath of office and participated in a session of the council he was honestly of opinion and had good reason to believe that he was not delinquent in the payment of his taxes.

Delinquency in the payment of taxes is an offense under the Election Law in the case of a voter as well as of an elective officer. The sole fact of a delinquency does not of itself constitute the offense, however. In each case the law requires that the defendant’s knowledge of such delinquency is essential to his conviction. But since "whether or not the said tax has been is something which the accused ought to know better than anyone else, said fact being by the very nature of the case properly within his own knowledge," proof of the delinquency carries with it the inference of knowledge thereof on the part of the accused (U. S. v. Tabuyo, 19 Phil. Rep., 501.) Consequently, when the prosecution has proved the delinquency and the exercise of suffrage rights or of the assumption of official duties, as the case maybe, it has made prima facie case.

Under such circumstances it devolves upon the accused at least to raise a reasonable doubt of his knowledge of such delinquency. The mere assertion that he did not know of the delinquency in his tax payments is not sufficient to overcome the prima facie case made by the prosecution. It is a general rule that where a statute makes a specific act penal when knowingly done and the knowledge of the accused cannot be directly proved but is a matter of inference, it is only necessary to show that a prudent man could and would have ascertained from available sources of information, that the act complained of, under the existing circumstances, was contrary to law. In United States v. Estavillo (19 Phil. Rep., 478), a number of delinquent taxpayers were charged with exercising their suffrage rights. Their defense was that when they took the elector’s oath they did not knowingly [falsely] swear that their taxes had been paid, when as a matter of fact they were delinquent. On the trial they gave what this court considered sufficient excuses for their lack of knowledge. It was held in that case that the defendant had not exercised due diligence in ascertaining whether or not their taxes were delinquent; and that had they done so they would have discovered the actual state of affairs; that is, that their taxes were delinquent. The court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"When it is admitted or shown, as in the case at bar, that the defendants committed the unlawful act (swearing 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. it is appears that the voluntarily closed their eyes to the truth, or negligently failed to make inquiry, then their ignorance or mistake of fact is not defense.

"It may fairly be assumed that one who has reason to believe a fact exists, knows it exists. Certainly if he be a reasonable being." (Shaw v. Railroad Co., 101 U. S. 557.)

Conversely, if a man commits the act upon information obtained from a reliable source which would appeal to a reasonable man and cause him to perform the act on the strength of such information, believing that circumstances existed which rendered it lawful, he ought not to suffer the penalty. For it is not always possible to make first-hand investigations of the existence of facts which are necessary to justify a contemplated act. If a false report of the existence of a fact reaches a man through an agency which he has very reason to rely upon, he has a right to assume its existence, and cannot be said to know that it does not exist.

In the case at bar the defendant knew that his taxes had not been paid, and was aware that the law made it a penal offense to take the oath of office under such circumstances. His two sons, both grown men, were preparing to start for the poblacion on Friday morning. He therefore gave them sufficient money to pay his taxes, together with his tax receipt for the preceding year. Upon arriving at the town, the brothers transacted some business. The elder brother met an old friend, and the two went away together to a tienda where they drank considerable tuba, becoming intoxicated. This was the one who carried the tax money and who was expected to go to the municipal treasury and pay it in. The two brothers met late in the afternoon and started home. The elder brother was asked by the younger if he had paid their father’s taxes and he answered in the affirmative. he was so intoxicated that he gave his brother very little assistance in rowing the boat on their way home. They arrived home about 12 o’clock at night. In the meantime, their father had received a message from the municipal president requesting him to come to the municipal building the next day, Saturday, to take the oath of office. Accordingly, on Saturday morning the defendant prepared to start for town and asked his younger son if the taxes had been paid, to which the latter replied in the affirmative. The elder son had left home at daylight to gather fish. On Sunday he came to his father’s house and delivered over to him the tax money, stating that he had not gone to the treasurer’s office on Friday at all. The defendant paid the tax on the next day, Monday.

These are the facts of the case made by the united testimony of the defendant and his two sons. There are not inconsistencies in their testimony, their story is reasonable, and the sole ground given by the trial court for refusing to credit their declarations is that they are all related, and consequently interested in the acquittal of the defendant. But it is error to discredit the testimony of witnesses on the ground of interest alone. If the testimony of an interested witness is reasonable and consistent and is not contradicted by evidence from any reliable source, we see no other reason, as a general rule, for not accepting it. The frank confession of the defendant of his knowledge of the law making it a criminal offense for a delinquent taxpayer to qualify for an elective office, and his promptness in paying the tax on Monday, which was the first available opportunity for doing so after his eldest son informed him that it had not been paid, indicate to us that he did not take the oath of office knowing that his taxes were delinquent.

Upon a careful consideration of the testimony of record we conclude that the trial court did not give due weight to the testimony for the defendant, and that such testimony rebuts the inference that he took the oath of office knowing that his taxes were delinquent. A precedent both in the facts and law governing our decision is United States v. Lopez (16 Phil., Rep., 416).

The defendant is therefore acquitted, with costs de officio.

Arellano, C.J., Carson, Moreland and Araullo, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





March-1914 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9267 March 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GERVASIO GUMARANG ET AL.,

    027 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 9291 March 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CAMILA CUNANAN

    027 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. 8254 March 3, 1914 - MARIANO GONZAGA ET AL. v. FELISA GARCIA ET AL.

    027 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. 8913 March 3, 1914 - NELLIE LOUISE COOK v. J. MCMICKING

    027 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 9201 March 3, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO SUAN

    027 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 8223 March 4, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO PAINAGA

    027 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. 7657 March 6, 1914 - AMBROSIO TIEMPO v. VIUDA E HIJOS DE PLACIDO REYES

    027 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. 8429-27 March 7, 1914 - CITY OF MANILA v. EVARISTO BATLLE ET AL.

    027 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 8662 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. HERMOGENES BESUÑA

    027 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 8699 March 7, 1914 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. SHERIFF OF OCCIDENTAL NEGROS

    027 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 8983 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO EDPALINA

    027 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 9066 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO HUDIERES

    027 Phil 45

  • G.R. No. 7946 March 9, 1914 - CITY OF MANILA v. SATURNINA RIZAL

    027 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 8227 March 9, 1914 - ANTONIO M. JIMENEZ v. FIDEL REYES

    027 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. 8325 March 10, 1914 - C. B. WILLIAMS v. TEODORO R. YANGCO

    027 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. 8927 March 10, 1914 - ASUNCION NABLE JOSE ET AL. v. MARIA IGNACIA USON ET AT.

    027 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 9147 March 10, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PERFECTO LAMADRID ET AL.

    027 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 8603 March 13, 1914 - SEVERINO CORNISTA v. SEVERA TICSON

    027 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 8984 March 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN LABIAL

    027 Phil 82

  • G.R. Nos. 9471 & 9472 March 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO VAQUILAR

    027 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. 8748 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SANTOS P. PALMA

    027 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. 8931 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MARQUI

    027 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. 8971 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CIRILO BAUA

    027 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. 9006 March 14, 1914 - JOSE ANTONIO GASCON ENRIQUEZ v. A.D. GIBBS

    027 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 9059 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. BUENAVENTURA SARMIENTO

    027 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. 9099 March 14, 1914 - J. MCMICKING v. SPRUNGLI & CO. ET AL.

    027 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 9169 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PANTELEON MARIANO ET AL.

    027 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 9348 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ELEUTERO MANTE

    027 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 7352 March 15, 1914 - CATALINO HILLARO v. LA CONGREGACION DE SAN VICENTE DE PAUL

    027 Phil 593

  • G.R. No. 8140 March 16, 1914 - FORTUNATO GASPAR v. ANACLETO QUINADARA

    027 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. 8851 March 16, 1914 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW YORK ET AL.,

    027 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 8200 March 17, 1914 - LEONARDO LUCIDO v. GELASIO CALUPITAN ET AL.

    027 Phil 148

  • Special proceeding March 17, 1914 - IN RE: EUGENIO DE LARA

    027 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 7333 March 18, 1914 - DEMETRIO ARCENAS v. ESTANISLAO LASERNA

    027 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 7790 March 19, 1914 - EL BANCO ESPANOL-FILIPINO v. MCKAY & ZOELLER

    027 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 8235 March 19, 1914 - ISIDORO SANTOS v. LEANDRA MANARANG

    027 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 8414 March 19,1914

    ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHIBISHOP OF MANILA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    027 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 8998 March 19, 1914 - JOSE FLORENDO v. EUSTAQUIO P. FOZ

    027 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 9307 March 19, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO GARCIA ET AL.

    027 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 9098 March 20, 1914 - JOSE M. GONZALEZ v. PERCY M. MOIR

    027 Phil 256

  • Special proceeding March 21, 1914 - IN RE: LUICIANO DE LA ROSA

    027 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. 8937 March 21, 1914 - ALHAMBRA CIGAR AND CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING. CO. v. PEDRO N. MOJICA

    027 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. 9302 March 21, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. AGATON DUNGCA

    027 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 6960 March 23, 1914 - VICENTE GUASH v. JUANA ESPIRITU

    027 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 7909 March 24, 1914 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ISABEL RAMIREZ

    027 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 8385 March 24, 1914 - LUCIO ALGARRA v. SIXTO SANDEJAS

    027 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. 8314 March 25, 1914 - M. A. CLARKE v. MANILA CANDY COMPANY

    027 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 8461 March 25, 1914 - RAMON MEDINA ONG-QUINGCO v. CECILIO IMAZ

    027 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. 9124 March 25, 1914 - PIO MERCADO v. MARIA TAN-LINGCO

    027 Phil 319

  • Special Proceeding March 25, 1914 - IN RE: EMILIANO TRIA TIRONA

    027 Phil 323



  • G.R. No. 7721 March 25, 1914 - INCHAUSTI & CO. v. GREGORIO YULO

    034 Phil 978


  • G.R. No. 7420 March 25, 1914 - NAZARIO CABALLO ET AL. v. CIPRIANO DANDOY ET. AL.

    027 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 7762 March 25, 1914 - BEHN v. JOSE MCMICKING

    027 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 7593 March 27, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE M. IGPUARA

    027 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. 7647 March 27, 1914 - DOMINGO CALUYA v. LUCIA DOMINGO

    027 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 7670 March 28, 1914 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. CITY OF MANILA

    027 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 8051 March 28, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE MADRIGAL ET AL.

    027 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. 9010 March 28, 1914 - J. H. CHAPMAN v. JAMES M. UNDERWOOD

    027 Phil 374

  • G.R. Nos. 9619 & 9620 March 28, 1914 - NGO YAO TIT EL AL. v. SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF MANILA

    027 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. 7270 March 29, 1914 - GREGORIO JIMENEZ ET AL. v. PASCUALA LOZADA ET AL.

    027 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 7287 & 7288 March 29, 1914 - PEDRO MONTIERO v. VIRGINIA SALGADO Y ACUÑA

    027 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 7896 March 30, 1914 - JOSE MCMICKING v. CRISANTO LICHAUGO ET AL.

    027 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. 8313 March 30, 1914 - JOSE MA. Y. DE ALDECOA v. JOSE FORTIS ET AL.

    027 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 8362 March 30, 1914 - JOSE PEREZ PASTOR v. PEDRO NOEL ET AL.

    027 Phil 393

  • G.R. No. 8375 March 30, 1914 - INTERISLAND EXPRESS CO. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    027 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 8478 March 30, 1914 - LUIS ESPERANZA v. ANDREA CATINDING

    027 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 8527 March 30, 1914 - WEST COAST LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. GEO. N. HURD

    027 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 8579 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. RUPERTO T. SANTIAGO

    027 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. 8654 March 30, 1914 - EUGENIO RESOLME ET AL. v. ROMAN LAZO

    027 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 8689 March 30, 1914 - LIBRADO MANAS ET AL. v. MARIA RAFAEL

    027 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 8781 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO JAVIER DICHAO

    027 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 8785 March 30, 1914 - UY ALOC ET AL. v. CHO JAN LING ET AL.

    027 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 9178 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FELIPE LASTIMOSA

    027 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 9217 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO MARTINEZ

    027 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 9294 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO SANCHEZ

    027 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 9329 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNINO AGUAS

    027 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 9397 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE VAYSON

    027 Phil 447