THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. BRIGIDO JAVIER AND OTHERS, DEFENDANTS – BRIGIDO JAVIER, APPELLANT.

The appellant  was  charged  in  the court below with a violation of the Election Law in that he falsely swore that he was not delinquent in the payment of public taxes assessed since August 13, 1898, when, in truth and  in fact, he was delinquent in the  payment of the “road and bridge fund” cedula tax assessed in his province under the provisions of Act No.  1652.  The appellant admits and the proof establishes that at the time when he took said oath, he had hot paid the “road  and bridge fund” cedula tax assessed in his province under the provisions  of  Act No.  1652.  He contends,  however, that having once paid a cedula tax in Manila, which included the special additional “road and bridge fund”  tax, the  imposition of which is authorized under Act No. 1652, he was not required to pay the special additional “road and  bridge fund” tax levied in the province wherein he resided at the time of taking the oath.  But the law is so clear and explicit upon this point that there can be no room for discussion, Act No.  1652,  amending  Act No. 83 and Act No. 1189,  expressly  providing that:

“*   *   * All residents of a  province subject to the payment of a cedula tax wherein the  increase herein provided is in effect shall pay the same within that province, and payment thereof in any province other than that of their residence shall not exempt such residents  from paying also in the province in which they reside the additional cedula tax for which provision may be  made by resolution of the provincial board in  accordance with this section  *  *  *.”

It is quite clear, therefore, that at the time when the defendant made oath that he was not, “delinquent in the payment of public taxes assessed  since August 13, 1898,” he was in fact  delinquent in the payment of the “road and bridge fund” cedula tax assessed in his province under the provisions of Act No. 1652.

Applying the reasoning of our decision in the case of U. S, vs.  Melecio Estavillo et al.,’ No. 6133,^[1] just decided, to the facts satisfactorily established at the trial of this case, the judgment of conviction in the court below must be affirmed, but the sentence must be modified by striking out therefrom so much thereof as imposes subsidiary imprisonment in the event of failure to pay the costs, and by fixing the rate at which the  subsidiary imprisonment  in the  event of  non- payment  of the fine is to be estimated  at P2.50, instead of P2 per diem.

Thus modified, the sentence imposed  by the trial court is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

Torres, Johnson, and Moreland, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Page 478, supra.