G.R. No. L-6593 / January 27, 1912
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CORNELIO LABAN, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Cornelio Laban was charged with violating the Election Law ( Act No. 1582 ). The information alleged that on or about October 1, in Sorsogon, Sorsogon, he willfully and knowingly made a false statement under oath before election inspectors. He swore that he was not delinquent in the payment of any taxes for the purpose of registering as a voter, when in fact he was delinquent at that time. After trial, the court found him guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of P200 and costs, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Laban appealed, arguing that he was told he would incur no criminal liability if he paid his taxes before election day, and that the preliminary investigation was insufficient to justify his arrest.

ISSUE

1. Whether the defendant’s belief that he would not be criminally liable if he paid his taxes before election day constitutes a valid defense to the charge of knowingly making a false oath.
2. Whether alleged defects in the preliminary investigation affect the validity of the conviction.
3. Whether subsidiary imprisonment may be imposed for non-payment of costs.

RULING

1. No, the defendant’s belief is not a valid defense. The court held that if Laban had sufficient intelligence to exercise the right of suffrage, he should have understood that there is no justification for swearing to a fact he knew was false. The advice he allegedly received does not justify the act of knowingly making a false oath. The offense was complete when he made the false statement under oath, regardless of his intent to pay taxes later. (Citing U.S. v. Arzadon and U.S. v. Estavillo)
2. No, defects in the preliminary investigation do not invalidate the conviction. A preliminary investigation is merely to determine probable cause for arrest and does not form part of the trial unless introduced as evidence. The facts adduced therein cannot be used in the trial unless formally offered, and then generally only for impeaching witness credibility. (Citing U.S. v. Abuan and U.S. v. Grant)
3. No, subsidiary imprisonment cannot be imposed for non-payment of costs. The court modified the sentence, citing jurisprudence that there is no legal provision authorizing subsidiary imprisonment for failure to pay costs. (Citing U.S. v. Navarro, U.S. v. Estavillo, U.S. v. Castroverde, and U.S. v. Ibrado)

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the fine but modified the penalty by deleting the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment of costs.