DIGEST

FACTS
Bartolome Gray, a duly elected councilor of the municipality of Candon, was accused of violating Act No. 663. The accusation stated that from 1904 to April 24, 1906, Gray served as a councilor. Furthermore, from 1905 until the first months of 1906, he was directly interested in the cockpit business within the municipality. To facilitate this involvement, he secured a license for the cockpit in 1905 and renewed it on January 5, 1906. The prosecution moved to consider these facts proven, which was admitted by the defense. The defense, however, argued that Gray did not intend to commit an offense and was ignorant of the provision that prohibited councilors from participating in businesses where the municipality had an interest, such as cockpits. They also stated that upon becoming aware of this prohibition, Gray immediately sought to cancel his license.

ISSUE
Whether or not Bartolome Gray’s claim of ignorance of the law regarding municipal officers’ involvement in cockpits is a valid defense against the charge of violating Act No. 663.

RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that ignorance of the law is not an admissible excuse for non-compliance. As a councilor, Bartolome Gray had a duty to be knowledgeable of all existing laws, particularly those pertaining to his official functions and obligations. This includes Act No. 82, the Municipal Code, and its amendment, Act No. 663, both of which were in force well before he assumed his duties. The presumption is that he was aware of these provisions. Therefore, his defense of ignorance was rejected, and the judgment of the lower court, sentencing him to six months’ imprisonment, was affirmed.