Case Digest (G.R. No. L-3482)
Facts:
The United States v. Bartolome Gray, G.R. No. 3482. September 07, 1907, the Supreme Court En Banc, Torres, J., writing for the Court.The provincial fiscal of Ilocos Sur filed a written complaint dated April 24, 1906, charging Bartolome Gray (defendant and appellant), then a duly elected councilor of the municipality of Candon, with violating the prohibition against municipal officers being interested in cockpits and similar businesses as contained in Act No. 663, which amended paragraph (a) of section 28 of the Municipal Code (Act No. 82). The complaint alleged that Gray, who had served as councilor since 1904, was directly interested in a cockpit business from 1905 to early 1906 and had obtained a license for that business in 1905, renewed on January 5, 1906.
At trial Gray pleaded not guilty but, following a motion by the provincial fiscal to shorten proceedings, the fiscal proffered three facts as indisputable: Gray’s tenure as councilor from 1904 to April 24, 1906; his direct interest in the cockpit business from 1905 to early 1906; and his procurement and renewal of the cockpit license. The defense admitted those facts but asserted that Gray lacked criminal intent and was ignorant of the prohibition; counsel added that Gray immediately sought cancellation of the license when informed of the impropriety.
The trial judge accepted the admissions, found Gray guilty of violating Act No. 82 as amended by Act No. 663, and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment and costs. Cou...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is Gray’s claim of ignorance of the law and lack of intent a valid defense to the charge under the municipal prohibition?
- Do the admitted facts sustain a conviction under Act No. 82, as amended by Act No...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)