The crime of false testimony is committed by a person who, being
under oath and required to testify as to the truth of a certain matter
at a hearing before a competent authority, shall deny the truth or say
something contrary to it (Luis B. Reyes,The Revised Penal Code Book
Two (13th Ed.), p. 235). There are three kinds of false testimony: 1)
false testimony in criminal cases (Articles 180 and 181, Revised Penal
Code); 2) false testimony in civil cases (Article 182, Ibid.); and 3) false
testimony in other cases (Article 183, Id.).
We are inclined to agree with the defense that the crime committed is perjury. That 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. False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation. — 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 to 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 the case of solemn affirmation made in lieu of an oath, shall commit any
of the falsehood mentioned in this and the three preceding articles of this section, shall suffer
the respective penalties provided therein.
This article is similar to section 3 of Act No. 1697 of the Philippine Commission, which was formerly
the law punishing perjury. Under said section 3 of that Act, this Court, in the case of United
States vs. Tupasi Molina (29 Phil., 119), held that a person, who stated under oath in his application
to take police examination that he had never been convicted of any crime, when as a matter of fact
he had previous convictions, committed perjury. The facts in that case are almost exactly analogous
to those in the present, and we find no reason, either in law or in the arguments of the Solicitor
General, to modify or reverse the conclusions of this Court therein. More so, because all the
elements of the offense of perjury defined in Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code concur in the
present case. We do not, however, find merit in the contention that the crime committed by the
accused, which is punishable by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period, has already prescribed. Under paragraph 3 of Article 90 of the Revised Penal
Code, "Those (crimes, punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribed in ten years; with the
exception of those punishable by arresto mayor, which shall prescribed in five years." While the
penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty shall, according to the last paragraph of
the same article, be made the basis of the application of the rules contained therein. The penalty for
the crime of perjury being a compound one, the highest of which is correctional, we hold that said
crime prescribes in ten years. Even assuming, therefore, that the prescription of the offense here in
question began to run from the date of its commission, since there was nothing that was concealed
or needed to be discovered, as maintained by the accused, it is apparent that the present
proceedings were, under the law, commenced within the statutory period. From October 19, 1948,
when the application form was accomplished, to February 27, 1956, when these proceedings were
instituted, only 7 years, 4 months and 8 days have elapsed.
The penalty for perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code, as already seen, is arresto
mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period. Since there is no
mitigating or aggravating circumstance the penalty should be imposed in its medium period.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty should be from 4 months of arresto mayor as
minimum to 1 year and 1 day of prision correccional as maximum.
Wherefore, with the modification that the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of from 4
months of arresto mayor as minimum to 1 year and 1 day of prision correccional as maximum, the
judgment appealed from is affirmed. Costs against the accused-appellant.
Paras, Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Barrera,
JJ., concur.
Simply put, the element of perjury are: that the accused made the statement under oath or
executed an affidavit upon a material matter; that the statement or administer oath; that in that
statement or affidavit the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood; and
that the sworn statement or affidavit ..
Perjury, lying under oath, and
peddling of lies
BY AL S. VITANGCOL 3RD
MARCH 11, 2017
The crime of perjury
Black’s Law Dictionary defines perjury as “the willful assertion as to
a matter of fact, opinion, belief, or knowledge, made by a witness in a
judicial proceeding as part of his evidence, either upon oath or in any
form allowed by law to be substituted for an oath, whether such
evidence is given in open court, or in an affidavit, or otherwise, such
assertion being known to such witness to be false, and being intended
by him to mislead the court, jury, or person holding the proceeding.”
The crime of perjury is punished here in the Philippines in accordance
with the proviso of Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Further, it must be identified and taken in relation to Articles 180-182
of the RPC.
Article 183 of the RPC is as follows –
“Art. 183. False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn
affirmation.- The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any
person, who knowingly makes 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.”
Article 180 penalizes giving false testimony against the defendant in
any criminal case while Article 181 punishes offering false testimony
in favor of the defendant. On the other hand, Article 182 deals with
persons found guilty of false testimony in a civil case.
Article 183 in fact refers to either of two punishable acts: 1) falsely
testifying under oath in a proceeding other than a criminal or civil
case; and 2) making a false affidavit before a person authorized to
administer an oath on any material matter where the law requires an
oath.
There are four elements that must be present for one to be charged of
the crime of perjury (Diaz v. People, G.R. No. 65006, 1990). These
are as follows:
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 the statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and
deliberate assertion of a falsehood.
d. That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is
required by law or made for a legal purpose.
My insight tells me that they may be charged with the crime of
perjury. Are they guilty of perjury? Well, that is an entirely different
story and I will not answer that.
Perjury being a felony by dolo, there must be malice on the part of the
accused. Willfully means intentionally, with evil intent and legal
malice, with consciousness that the alleged perjurious statement is
false with the intent that it should be received as a statement of what
was true in fact. It is equivalent to knowingly.
Deliberately implies meditated as distinguished from inadvertent acts.
It must appear that the accused knows his statement to be false or is
consciously ignorant of its truth.
