G.R. No. L-3715: The United States vs. Bibiano Borja

FACTS: The defendant, Bibiano Borja, was the municipal treasurer of Pitogo, Tayabas. He was prosecuted for violating the second paragraph of section 24 of the Internal Revenue Law of 1904 (Act No. 1189). Three Chinese individuals testified that they obtained opium smoking licenses from Borja. While the legal fee for such a license was 5 pesos, Borja allegedly charged them 6 pesos and 20 centavos each. Borja claimed he received only 5 pesos, with the remaining 1 peso and 20 centavos paid to the municipal secretary. The latter purportedly charged 20 centavos for a revenue stamp and 1 peso for writing a formal written application for the license. Act No. 1461 , section 2, stipulated that a written application, duly verified by oath, was required for an opium smoking license. The Internal Revenue Bureau had provided printed blanks that included an application form, a certificate for oath administration, and the license itself. Borja filled out these blanks, administered the oath, and certified the applications. He argued that the law required a separate, formal written application beyond the printed form. The municipal secretary testified that he indeed prepared these separate applications, certified them, and collected the 20 centavos for the stamp and 1 peso for his services from each applicant. The original applicants testified that they paid the full 6 pesos and 20 centavos to Borja. The trial court found Borja guilty of the offense.

ISSUE: Whether or not the municipal treasurer, Bibiano Borja, was guilty of illegally collecting fees for opium smoking licenses by requiring and collecting an additional 1 peso and 20 centavos per license beyond the legally prescribed fee of 5 pesos, by demanding a separate written application and associated fees when a pre-printed application form was part of the official license issuance process.

RULING: The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Bibiano Borja, modifying the sentence by striking out the phrase “hard labor.” The Court found that Borja’s construction of the law, necessitating a separate, formal written application beyond the integrated printed form provided by the government, was inadmissible. The Court concluded that the integrated printed form fulfilled the legal requirement for a written application. Furthermore, the Court found it evident that Borja, along with the municipal secretary, knew that the separate written applications and the associated fees were unnecessary. The testimony of the three Chinese individuals, who positively stated they paid the excess amounts to Borja, was considered credible by the Court. Consequently, Borja was found to have imposed upon the licensees and illegally collected fees in violation of the law. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed in all other respects, with costs against the appellant.