Case Summary (G.R. No. L-44143)
Prosecution’s Case
Three witnesses—including a former fishpond worker, the barrio captain, and the municipal treasurer—testified that Nazario owned and operated a 27.1998-hectare fishpond, neglected repeated written demands, and failed to pay the required fees. Documentary demands and registry receipts were admitted.
Defense’s Case
Nazario testified that he lived and conducted business in Manila, holding only a lease from the Philippine Fisheries Commission. He asserted that the fishpond was under construction or destroyed by typhoon, that the tax demands had lapsed under the Revised Administrative Code, and that the ordinances were ultra vires, ambiguous, and inapplicable to a nonresident lessee.
Trial Court Decision
The Court of First Instance of Quezon found Nazario guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposed a ₱50 fine (with subsidiary imprisonment in default) plus costs.
Issues on Appeal
- Whether the ordinances are void for vagueness and uncertainty.
- Whether the 1966 amendment operates ex post facto.
- Whether lessees of public lands fall outside “owners or managers.”
- Whether nonresidents are beyond the municipality’s taxing reach.
Municipal Ordinance Framework
- Ordinance No. 4 (1955): P3.00 per hectare per annum imposed on any “owner or manager” of fishponds within municipal limits.
- Ordinance No. 15 (1965): Deferred tax payment until three years after Bureau of Fisheries approval.
- Ordinance No. 12 (1966): Made the tax effective from 1964 for fishponds operating before that year.
Void for Vagueness Challenge
The Court held that the terms “owner or manager” clearly include an actual operator who finances, constructs, and profits from the fishpond. The timing provisions establish definite accrual dates—January 1, 1964, or three years post-approval—so any computational difficulty does not render the ordinances vague or violative of due process.
Ex Post Facto Argument
Because the original penal sanction dated from 1955, the 1966 amendment merely granted amnesty to delinquent operators and did not impose new penalties on pre-enactment conduct. No
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-44143)
Facts of the Case
- Accused Eusebio Nazario was charged by information dated October 9, 1968, with willfully and unlawfully refusing to pay municipal fishpond taxes totaling ₱362.62 for 1964–1966 under Pagbilao Municipal Ordinance No. 4, series of 1955, as amended.
- The fishpond was located in Barrio Pinagbayanan, Pagbilao, Quezon, on a 27.1998-hectare parcel leased from the government under Fishpond Lease Agreement No. 1066 (Aug. 21, 1959).
- By confession and avoidance, Nazario admitted the acts but challenged the ordinances’ constitutionality, territorial scope, ex post facto effect, ambiguity, and applicability to a public-land lessee and non-resident.
Prosecution’s Evidence
- Miguel Francia and Nicolas Macarolay testified to Nazario’s operation of the fishpond from 1959 to 1967, including construction, stocking, and harvest activities.
- Municipal Treasurer Rodolfo R. Alvarez presented letters of demand (Exhibits B, B-1, C) and a request for Fishery Commission records (Exhibits D-1 to D-3), confirming unpaid taxes for 1964–1966.
- Exhibits A, A-1, A-2, B, B-2, C, E, F, and F-1 (tax rolls, receipts, demand letters) were admitted; D-series exhibits were excluded as immaterial.
Defense’s Evidence
- Nazario testified he was a Manila resident since 1949, conducted business in Manila, and never resided or owned property in Pagbilao.
- He produced his fishpond lease (Exhibit 1), translations of the ordinances (Exhibit 2), multiple demand and reply letters (Exhibits 3–8 and 3-A, 5-A, 7-A, 8-A),