EN BANC
G.R. No. L-3482 September 7, 1907
E. Pineda for appellant.
Attorney-General Araneta for appellee.
TORRES, J.:
Topic: Art. 3 - Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.
FACTS:
1. Bartolome Gray, a councilor in the municipality of Candon was accused of the violation of Act No. 663. The accused was seated as a municipal councilor since 1904 and began engaging in a cockpit in said town since 1905 had his license therefor renewed on 05 January 1906.
2. The accused violated the Municipal Code amended by Act No. 663 which provides that "no municipal officer shall be directly or indirectly interested in cockpits" and that any officer caught in violation of this upon 2/3rds of votes of all the members of the council, be removed from office and upon a court conviction, shall be imprisoned from 6 months to 2 years.
3. The prosecution provided the following facts:
3.1. That Gray has acted as a duly municipal councilor and had exercised the inherent rights and duties of such office.
3.2. He was directly interested in the cockpit business from 1905 until the first months of 1906.
3.3. He secured a license for said business in 1905 and renewed it on 05 January 1906.
4. The accused admitted the facts yet pleaded ignorance to the municipal code provision. He further contended that the discovery of this violation was due to his request for his license to be canceled after an intelligent person pointed this to him.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused be acquitted on the ground of ignorance.
RULING:
No, the accused should no be acquitted by reason of his ignorance. It is an express legal precept that ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith (Art 2, Old CC). The accused cannot plead ignorance since as a councilor, it is his duty not only to know all the municipal laws to comply with them but also to ascertain that they would be complied with by his townsmen. The presumption that he is acquainted with Act No. 82 which was in force since 1901 and its amendment, Act No. 663 enacted in 1903 since both were long in effect prior to his assumption of office as a municipal councilor. Thus, the judgment appealed from is affirmed and the accused is convicted. Ignorance is not a valid defense.
Comments
Post a Comment