G.R. No. 11002 - People vs. Palacio

The United States, as Plaintiff and Appellee, charged Mateo P. Palacio with violating section 87 of Act No. 82 (the Municipal Code).
The case was initiated in the Court of First Instance of Leyte upon a complaint filed by the fiscal on December 18, 1914.
Defendant, serving as a deputy to the provincial assessor of Leyte, was charged with wilfully omitting from the tax list certain real properties belonging to Francisco Madlonito in Tacloban, Leyte.

On or about September 26, 1914, while executing his duties, defendant prepared a report assessing the real property of Francisco Madlonito.

The report described a rectangular parcel of unirrigated land with limited improvements (notably, 500 hemp plants).
The report failed to include additional parcels of land and numerous significant improvements that Francisco Madlonito actually possessed.

In October 1914, acting on information that the defendant’s report was erroneous, the provincial assessor, together with another deputy, remeasured and reassessed the property.

The subsequent investigation revealed that the actual land area was substantially larger (an additional 12 hectares 66 ares and 42 centares).
The property improvements were more extensive than those noted, including plantations of hemp, multiple clumps of coconut, cacao, and banana trees, among others.

Defendant attributed the omission to his reliance on information furnished by Francisco Madlonito and data provided by laborers who measured the property.

He claimed that he accepted the laborers’ confirmation regarding the measurements and the reported improvements.
He also mentioned that he postponed measuring the house (which was allegedly owned by Francisco’s brother) until a later date.

The court held that irrespective of defendant’s explanations, he had a duty to personally verify factual details to ensure the accuracy of the tax list.

A demurrer filed by defendant’s counsel, arguing that the facts did not constitute the prescribed crime, was overruled by the lower court.
Defendant pleaded not guilty, leading to a trial where evidence was produced by both prosecution and defense.
On January 15, 1915, the Court of First Instance rendered judgment finding defendant guilty, sentencing him to:

Forty days’ imprisonment in the provincial jail.
A fine of P100 (or, in case of insolvency, a corresponding subsidiary imprisonment).
Payment of court costs.

Section 87 of Act No. 82 (Municipal Code) punishes officials who wilfully omit from tax lists properties known to be lawfully taxable.
Act No. 2238, passed on February 11, 1913, created the office of provincial assessor and set the framework for the revision and correction of property assessments.
Amendments under Act No. 1930 modified the composition of the municipal board of assessors, but did not repeal or exempt the penalty under section 87.
The court noted that acts of repeal by implication were disfavored unless clearly intended, thus preserving section 87 even in light of newer legislation.

Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to prove the guilt of Mateo P. Palacio beyond all reasonable doubt.

The defendant contested the sufficiency of the evidence in proving that he willfully omitted taxable property from the tax list.
The issue revolved around whether the reliance on third-party information could absolve him from his personal duty of verifying facts.

Whether the omission in the tax report actually constituted an infraction under section 87 of Act No. 82.

Defendant argued that the facts, as presented in the complaint and established at trial, did not fit the specific crime described by section 87.
The legal interpretation of the statutory provision was questioned, particularly in relation to the duties imposed on officials and the impact of subsequent corrective measures.