THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. SANTOS P. PALMA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The evidence of record fully sustains the findings of fact by the trial judge
and establishes the guilt of the accused of the offense of which he was
convicted beyond a reason able doubt.

It was shown at the trial that the
accused purchased two tracts of land, one in the year 1908 and the other in the
year 1909, and that neither of these tracts was at that time listed on the books
of the provincial treasurer. The accused filed no declaration of ownership of
these lands until the year 1910, and they were assessed for the first time by
the municipal council in November of that year, though the valuation was not
finally determined until February, 1911, when it was definitely fixed by the
provincial board of tax appeals. Thereafter the accused paid the taxes assessed
for the year 1911, but paid no taxes for the years 1908, 1909, and 1910, during
which he had held the land without declaring it for taxation as required by law.
Early in the year 1911, notices of delinquency relating to the unpaid taxes were
addressed and mailed to the accused. In April, 1912, the accused took the
elector’s oath, solemnly declaring that at that time he was not delinquent in
the payment of taxes, although at that time he had paid no taxes on the lands in
question for the years 1908, 1909, or 1910.

Upon proof of these facts the court below convicted the accused of a
violation of paragraph 4 of section 30 of the Election Law (No. 1582), in that
he had “knowingly taken a false oath” before an election officer in relation to
a material fact in a registration proceeding.

The contention of counsel for appellant would seem to be that at the time
when the oath was taken no taxes had been lawfully assessed upon these lands for
the years 1908, 1909, and 1910, and that the notices of delinquency mailed in
January and February, 1911, were irregular and were not based on a lawful
assessment.

We find no merit in this contention. There can be no question as to the fact
that the accused was liable for the payment of the back taxes, and although the
evidence is not wholly satisfactory as to the regularity of the assessment and
the delinquency notices, nevertheless we think that in the absence of
satisfactory proof to the contrary, there is enough evidence in the record to
sustain a finding that these taxes were duly assessed and the accused duly
notified of his delinquency early in the year 1911. Moreover, where it appears,
as it does in this case, that the owner of real estate knowingly and willfully
neglects to make the declaration of ownership required by law, and thus avoids
the assessment of his land and evades the payment of taxes for which he was
justly liable, we are of opinion that he is delinquent in the payment of such
taxes so as to render him guilty of perjury in the event that he takes the
elector’s oath to the contrary. While one who has duly declared his real estate
does not become delinquent in the payment of the taxes thereon, so as to render
him liable to the payment of the penalties prescribed for delinquency, until and
unless the lands are duly assessed and notice of the amount of the taxes has
been duly furnished the land owner (U. S. vs. Labadan, 26 Phil. Rep.,
239), this rule does not apply in cases wherein the owner fails to declare his
property, and thus avoids the listing and valuing of such property for purposes
of taxation. Under the provisions of section 55 of Act No. 82, when back taxes
are assessed in such cases “the penalties and interest” are added to the back
taxes “as if the same had been assessed at the time when they should have been
assessed.”

The judgment entered in the court below convicting and sentencing the
defendant and appellant should be affirmed, with the costs of this instance
against the appellant. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Moreland, Trent, and Araullo, JJ.,
concur.