Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-9030 October 16, 1914
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
PEDRO ROSALES, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
Troadio Galicano and Eusebio Tionko for appellants.
Office of the Solicitor General Corpus for appellee.
ARELLANO, C.J.:
For violation of paragraph 4, section 30, of the Election Law by having sworn that they were not delinquent in the payment sworn that they were not delinquent in the payment of taxes, when they really were, thus taking s false oath, Pedro Rosales, Feliciano C. Veloria, and Florentino Buquingo were sentenced by the Court of First Instance of Surigao to the penalty of P200 and the payment of one-fourth of the coasts each.
It is a fact beyond all discussion that the appellants took in due form before a competent officer the oath required by law for voting in the general election held on May 4, 1912. The only matter to be discussed is whether their oath was or was not false, whether they were or were not delinquent in the payment of their taxes.
Pedro Rosales alleges that on March 30, 1910, he had ceased to be the owner of the land on which he is made to owe land tax on May 4, 1912, because he had on that date, March 30, 1910, sold it to Alejandro Villanueva, the reason wherefore he had after that date ceased to pay the land tax.
Feliciano C. Veloria has set up the same defense, presenting an instrument of sale in which it is set forth that on April 21, 1911, he sold the land on which he is made to owe land tax on May 4, 1912. Pedro Palillo, the vendee, testified that he had made the purchase from Veloria and paid the taxes. (Exhibit 3 and 4.)
Florentino Buquingo also sets up the same defense — that is, that he had sold the land on which he is made to owe land tax on May 4, 1912. (Exhibit 1.)1awphil.net
The municipal treasurer of Agusan, Butuan, certified that Pedro Rosales, delinquent in payment of his tax for the year 1911, paid it on June 29, 1912 (Exhibit E); that Feliciano C. Veloria in the same condition paid it on June 6, 1912 (Exhibit F); and that Florentino Buquingo in the same condition paid it on June 13, 1912 (Exhibit H). The fact then is that May, 1912, the last month for paying, passed without any of the defendants' having done so.
It is alleged that is necessary that the false statement was knowingly made in the oath; but it has already been decided that such is the presumption unless there is evidence to the contrary, under the presumption that every voluntary act implies. (17 Phil. Rep., 303.)
The judgment is affirmed, with the costs of this instance.
Torres, Johnson, Carson, Moreland, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
