Scribd
Upload
347 views3 pages

Abalos

The document discusses the elements of the crime of perjury under Philippine law. It lists four elements that must be present: 1) a statement made under oath on a material matter, 2) the statement was made before a competent officer authorized to administer oaths, 3) the statement deliberately and willfully asserted a falsehood, and 4) the sworn statement containing the falsehood was required by law or for a legal purpose. The document also discusses cases related to determining if there is probable cause of perjury and the need to prove the false statement was made deliberately and willfully.

Uploaded by

Wreigh Paris
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
347 views3 pages

Abalos

The document discusses the elements of the crime of perjury under Philippine law. It lists four elements that must be present: 1) a statement made under oath on a material matter, 2) the statement was made before a competent officer authorized to administer oaths, 3) the statement deliberately and willfully asserted a falsehood, and 4) the sworn statement containing the falsehood was required by law or for a legal purpose. The document also discusses cases related to determining if there is probable cause of perjury and the need to prove the false statement was made deliberately and willfully.

Uploaded by

Wreigh Paris
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

TRIAL BRIEF

The elements of perjury as enumerated in the case of People of the


Philippines vs. Bautista (C.A., 40 O.G. 2491) are as follows:
(a) Statement in the affidavit upon material latter made under oath;
(b) The affiant swears to the truthfulness of the statements in his affidavit
before a competent officer authorized to administer oath;
(c) There is a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood; and
(d) Sworn statement containing the falsity is required by law.
It cannot be denied that the petition for naturalization filed by Alfonso C.
Choa was made under oath and before a competent officer authorized to
administer oath as shown by the records (p. 4 APPENDIX "A"). This
petition for naturalization is required by law as a condition precedent for the
grant of Philippine citizenship (Section 7 Com. Act No. 473).
(ALFONSO C. CHOA, complainant, vs. JUDGE ROBERTO S.
CHIONGSON, respondent., A.M. No. MTJ-95-1063, 1996 February 09,
3rd Division) \---Super E-books Viewer 2000 5.0 Philippines Copyright
2000 by Sony Valdez---/
As to the complainant's claim that the withdrawal of the petition makes it
functus oficio, we sustain the respondent Judge's view that the Petition can
be used as evidence in another case. In the case of People of the Philippines
vs. Cainglet (16 SCRA 748) the Court held that "every interest of public
policy demands that perjury be not shielded by artificial refinements and
narrow technicalities. For perjury strikes at the very administration of the
laws (Jay vs. State, [1916] 15 Ala. App. 255, 43 So. 137). It is the policy of
the law that judicial proceedings and judgment shall be fair and free from
fraud, and that litigants and parties be encouraged to tell the truth and that
they be punished if they do not (People vs. Niles, 300 Ill., 458, 133 N.E.
252, 37 A.R.L. 1284, 1289)".
(ALFONSO C. CHOA, complainant, vs. JUDGE ROBERTO S.
CHIONGSON, respondent., A.M. No. MTJ-95-1063, 1996 February 09,
3rd Division)

\---Super E-books Viewer 2000 5.0 Philippines Copyright 2000 by Sony


Valdez---/
-There are four (4) elements of the crime of perjury to be taken into account
in determining whether there is a prima facie case, to wit: (a) that the
accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a
material matter; (b) that the statement or affidavit was made before a
competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath; (c) that in that
statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of
a falsehood; and, (d) that the sworn statement or affidavit containing the
falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose. 17
Clearly, mere assertion of a falsehood is not enough to amount to
perjury. The assertion must be deliberate and willful. While
there may have been a falsehood asserted, which we are not prepared to
accept, no evidence exists to show that the same was done deliberately and
willfully. On the contrary, the records tend to show that the assertion was
done in good faith, in the belief that the non-payment of the last installment
price was justified by the sellers' non-compliance with their warranties.
Besides, petitioner alleges that he has deposited the balance in escrow, which
is not disputed. Consequently, a finding of probable cause does not follow as
a matter of course even if SEC decides adversely against petitioner, for an
essential element of the crime appears to be wanting in the case before us,
i.e., that the falsehood is willful and deliberate.
(HONORIO SAAVEDRA, JR., petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG, BRANCH 67, and
GREGORIO M. RAMOS, respondents., G.R. No. 93173, September 15,
1993, 1st Division)
\---Super E-books Viewer 2000 5.0 Philippines Copyright 2000 by Sony
Valdez---/
-Following the doctrine laid down, however, in the case of People v. Rufo B.
Cruz, No. L-15132, May 25, 1960, 108 Phil. 255 and the earlier case of
United States v. Tupasi Molina, 29 Phil. 119, the crime committed under the
foregoing facts, is perjury. This offense, as defined in Article 183 of the
Revised Penal Code is the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under
oath or affirmation administered by authority of law on a material matter.
The said article provides

Art. 183.
affirmation.

False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn

The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional


in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who, knowingly
making untruthful statements and not being included in the provisions of the
next preceding articles, shall testify under oath or make an affidavit upon
any material matter before a competent person authorized to administer an
oath in cases in which the law so requires.
Any person who, in case of a solemn affirmation made in lieu of an oath,
shall commit any of the falsehoods mentioned in this and the three preceding
articles of this section shall suffer the respective penalties provided therein.
(REOLANDI DIAZ, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
and INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, respondents., G.R. No.
65006, 1990 October 31, 2nd Division) \---Super E-books Viewer 2000
5.0 Philippines Copyright 2000 by Sony Valdez---/
Thus, the phrase or make an affidavit necessarily refers to an affidavit or
statement in an ongoing inquiry, otherwise, there is no way of ascertaining
the materiality of any false statement embodied therein to a matter or issue
under inquiry. Without a commenced proceeding, there are as yet no matter
or issue under inquiry, there as yet no issues to be resolved. (Annotation
by David Nitafan in Burgos vs. Aquino, 249 SCRA 519)
As Justice Malcolm has opined, while the doctrine of privileged
communications is liable to be abused, and its abuse may lead to great
hardships, yet to give legal sanctions to complaints may give rise to far
greater hardships. (Santiago vs. Calvo, 48 Phil 919, 923 citing Abbott vs.
National Bank of Commerce, 175 U.S. 409.
To punish falsities in the complaint or initiatory pleading would dissuade
civic-minded persons to complain against others. (Annotation by David
Nitafan, 249 SCRA 520)

You might also like