G.R. No. 47442 - Icard vs. Masigan

The case involves a complaint filed by Mr. Basilio R. Mapa, the prosecuting attorney of the Province of Ambos Camarines, charging Pedro de la Torre with an election law violation.
The complaint alleged that on April 25th–26th and May 2nd–3rd, 1919, in the municipality of Nabua, de la Torre unlawfully and willfully registered as a voter despite lacking the necessary qualifications set forth by the Election Law (Act No. 2711).

On January 13, 1920, the charges were brought before the court because de la Torre, who was not qualified, had taken the "elector’s oath" to register as a legal voter.
In his oath, he asserted that he met the voter qualifications, specifically claiming to possess the ability "to read and write either Spanish, English, or a native language."

Section 430 of Act No. 2711 details who may be registered as voters, provided the individual meets the qualifications stipulated in sections 431 and 432.
Section 431 lists the qualifications including:

Being a male, at least twenty-one years old, not a citizen or subject of a foreign power, residing in the Philippine Islands for one year and the municipality for six months immediately preceding voting.
Possessing additional qualifications by either having been a legal voter prior to August 28, 1916, owning real property of at least P500 value, paying taxes not less than P30 annually, or having the ability to read and write in Spanish, English, or a native language.

The record (Exhibit A) showed that de la Torre signed the oath with great difficulty, and his signature was so poorly executed that it was illegible.
The defendant admitted that apart from claiming the qualification based on literacy, he did not meet other qualifications such as property ownership or tax payment requirements.
There was no evidence adduced during the trial to demonstrate his ability to read in the required languages.

Despite the ambiguity in the defendant’s qualifications and signature, the election inspectors allowed him to vote.
The decision later criticizes the inspectors for not verifying the defendant’s eligibility and emphasizes the importance of their diligence in ensuring that only qualified individuals vote.

Whether the proof presented during the trial was enough to establish de la Torre’s qualifications, particularly his ability to read and write in Spanish, English, or a native language.
Whether the defendant’s failure to adduce any proof regarding his literacy should automatically result in establishing his ineligibility to vote.

The issue of whether it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the defendant could not read and write, or whether the burden should be on the defendant given his personal knowledge of his qualifications.
The legal principle discussed: “Ei incumbit probatio qui dieit, ponit qui negat,” which places the burden of proof on one who negates a fact within his personal knowledge.

Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court — six months imprisonment and a fine of P300 (with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency) — was justified by the evidence and applicable law.