THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. LAZARO TABUYO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

United States versus Tabuyo

The Case

This is a criminal case in which the Government of the United States, as plaintiff, prosecuted Lazaro Tabuyo for violating the Election Law by voluntarily and illegally causing his name to be registered as a qualified voter of the municipality of Badoc, Ilocos Norte, knowing that he lacked the qualifications of an elector. The case matters because it fixes the burden of proof in false-registration prosecutions: once the prosecution shows that the registrant took a false oath on a matter peculiarly within his own knowledge, it becomes the duty of the accused to come forward with facts reasonably showing that he had no guilty knowledge of his disqualification.

Procedural History

On the twenty-fifth day of December, 1909, the provincial fiscal of Ilocos Norte filed an information in the Court of First Instance of that province, presided over by Judge Dionisio Chanco, charging the appellant with the offense. After trial, the Court of First Instance convicted him of violating the Election Law and sentenced him to pay a fine of two hundred pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs of the trial. Tabuyo appealed the judgment of conviction to the Supreme Court.

Facts

On the twenty-fourth day of September, 1909, Lazaro Tabuyo caused his name to be registered as a qualified voter of Badoc, Ilocos Norte. At the time, he was delinquent in the payment of his territorial tax for the year 1909, and so he did not have the qualifications of an elector.

The only proof the appellant presented at trial was a receipt issued by the municipal treasurer showing that the tax had been paid on the twenty-fifth day of September, the day following his registration. He also testified in his own behalf that, before attempting to register, he had delivered the money for the payment of the tax to the teniente of the barrio, with the request that the latter pay it and take a receipt, and that he honestly believed, both when he took the oath required for registration and when he registered, that the tax had been paid and that he was a duly qualified elector entitled to register.

This defense rested on his testimony alone. He presented neither the teniente of the barrio nor any other person to support his bare allegation.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution made out a case against the accused upon proof that the oath taken as a prerequisite to registration was false, combined with the fact that whether the tax had been paid was a matter peculiarly within his own knowledge.
• Whether or not the accused discharged the burden of presenting facts from which it may reasonably be inferred that he had no guilty knowledge of his delinquency at the time of his registration.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision; it applies the Election Law, which requires payment of the territorial tax as a qualification of an elector and penalizes voluntary and illegal registration by one who knows he lacks that qualification. The Court states the governing rule of evidence as follows:

This court has already held that where it appears that the oath taken as a prerequisite to registration is false, as admitted by the appellant in this case, that fact, taken in connection with the other fact, that whether or not the said tax had been paid is something which the accused ought to know better than anyone else, said fact being by the very nature of the case particularly within his own knowledge, the prosecution has made out a case against him, and it is incumbent upon him to present facts from which it may reasonably be inferred that he had no guilty knowledge of his delinquency at the time of his registration.

This rule bears on the case because it fixes where the burden of going forward lies once the false oath and the matter of personal knowledge are established.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the prosecution had made out a case against the accused. The oath taken as a prerequisite to registration was false, and this the appellant admitted. Whether the tax had been paid was something he ought to know better than anyone else, being by the very nature of the case particularly within his own knowledge. From these two facts the prosecution's case arose, and it became incumbent upon him to present facts from which it might reasonably be inferred that he had no guilty knowledge of his delinquency at the time of his registration.

On the second issue, the Court held that the accused had not discharged that burden. His defense was supported by his testimony only; he presented neither the teniente of the barrio nor any other person to support his naked allegation. It did not appear that he made the slightest investigation before taking the oath as to whether the tax had been actually paid. He took no steps, before taking a solemn oath, to ascertain whether the facts to which he was to testify were true or false. Under such circumstances, the Court said, it cannot be said that the accused performed the duty which he obviously owed to himself as well as to the State.

Doctrine

First, in a prosecution for false registration under the Election Law, proof that the oath taken as a prerequisite to registration was false, taken together with the fact that the matter sworn to is peculiarly within the registrant's own knowledge, makes out a case for the prosecution. Second, the burden then shifts to the accused to present facts from which it may reasonably be inferred that he had no guilty knowledge of his delinquency at the time of his registration. Third, a bare, uncorroborated claim of good faith, unaccompanied by any investigation before taking a solemn oath, does not satisfy that burden, for the registrant owes a duty to himself as well as to the State to ascertain the truth of the facts to which he testifies.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, modifying only the subsidiary imprisonment rate so that, if the fine is not paid, the accused shall serve subsidiary imprisonment at two pesos and fifty centavos a day instead of two pesos a day as decreed by the trial court.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a false oath on a matter peculiarly within the registrant's own knowledge makes out a case for the prosecution and shifts to him the duty to show he had no guilty knowledge. Examiners use this case on the burden of evidence in false-registration and election offenses, and on the limits of a self-serving claim of good faith.