On
False Testimony In Other Cases And Perjury In Solemn Affirmation

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.

ELEMENTS:
1. That an accused made a statement under oath or made an affidavit upon a material matter;
2. That the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath;
3. That in that statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood; and
4. That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law.

Two (2) Ways Of Committing Perjury:
a. by falsely testifying under oath
b. by making a false statement

NOTES:

Subornation of perjury is committed if a person procures another to swear falsely and the witness suborned does testify under circumstances rendering him guilty of perjury. This is now treated as plain perjury, the one inducing another as principal by inducement and the one induced as principal by direct participation.

Solemn affirmation refers to non-judicial proceedings and affidavits.

A false affidavit to a criminal complaint may give rise to perjury.

A matter is material when it is directed to prove a fact in issue.

A “competent person authorized to administer an oath” means a person who has a right to inquire into the questions presented to him upon matters under his jurisdiction.

There is no perjury through negligence or imprudence since the assertion of falsehood must be willful and deliberate.

Even if there is no law requiring the statement to be made under oath, as long as it is made for a legal purpose, it is sufficient.

Perjury is an offense which covers false oaths other than those taken in the course of judicial proceedings.

False testimony before the justice of the peace during a preliminary investigation may give rise to the crime of perjury, not false testimony in judicial proceedings. The latter crime contemplates an actual trial where a judgment of conviction or acquittal is rendered.

Diaz vs. People, 191 SCRA 86

Elements of perjury

1. Offender makes a statement under oath or executes an affidavit upon a material matter;
2. The statement or affidavit is made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oaths;
3. Offender makes a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood in the statement or affidavit;
4. The sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law, that is, it is made for a legal purpose.

The statement should be outside the coverage of art 180-181.

Because of the requirement that the assertion of falsehood be made willfully and deliberately, there could be no perjury through negligence or imprudence.

Furthermore, good faith or lack of malice is a defense in perjury.

It is not necessary that there be a law requiring the statement to be made under oath, as long as it is made for a legal purpose.

Bar Exam Question (1996)

Sisenando purchased the share of the stockholders of Estrella Corporation in two installments, making him the majority stockholder thereof and eventually, its president. Because the stockholders who sold their stocks failed to comply with their warranties attendant to the sale, Sisenando withheld payment of the second installment due on the shares and deposited the money in escrow instead, subject to release once said stockholders comply with their warranties. The stockholders concerned, in turn, rescinded the sale in question and removed Sisenando from the Presidency of the Estrella Corporation, Sisenando then filed a verified complaint for damages against said stockholders in his capacity as president and principal stockholder of Estrella Corporation. In retaliation, the stockholders concerned, after petitioning the Securities and Exchange Commission to declare the rescission valid, further filed a criminal case for perjury against Sisenando, claiming that the latter perjured himself when he stated under oath in the verification of his complaint for damages that he is the President of the Estrella Corporation when in fact he had already been removed as such. Under the facts of the case, could Sisenando be held liable for perjury? Explain.

Suggested Answer:

No, Sisenando may not be held liable for perjury because It cannot be reasonably maintained that he willfully and deliberately made an assertion of a falsehood when he alleged in the complaint that he is the President of the Corporation, obviously, he made the allegation on the premise that his removal from the presidency is not valid and that is precisely the issue brought about by his complaint to the SEC. It is a fact that Sisenando has been the President of the corporation and it is from that position that the stockholders concerned purportedly removed him, whereupon he filed the complaint questioning his removal. There is no willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood which is a requisite of perjury.

Bar ExamQuestion (1997)

A, a government employee, was administratively charged with immorality for having an affair with B, a co-employee in the same office who believed him to be single. To exculpate himself, A testified that he was single and was willing to marry B, He induced C to testify and C did testify that B was single. The truth, however, was that A had earlier married D, now a neighbor of C. Is A guilty of perjury? Are A and C guilty of subordination of perjury?

Suggested Answer:

No. A is not guilty of perjury because the willful falsehood asserted by him is not material to the charge of immorality.

Whether A is single or married, the charge of immorality against him as a government employee could proceed or prosper. In other words, A's civil status is not a defense to the charge of immorality, hence, not a material matter that could influence the charge.

There is no crime of subornation of perjury. The crime is now treated as plain perjury with the one inducing another as the principal inducement, and the latter, as principal by direct participation (People vs. Podol 66 Phil. 365). Since in this case A cannot be held liable for perjury, the matter that he testified to being immaterial, he cannot, therefore, be held responsible as a principal by inducement when he induced C to testify on his status. Consequently, C is not liable as principal by direct participation in perjury, having testified on matters not material to an administrative case.


Bar Exam Question (2005)

Al Chua, a Chinese national, filed a petition under oath for naturalization, with the Regional Trial Court of Manila. In his petition, he stated that he is married to Leni Chua; that he is living with her in Sampaloc, Manila; that he is of good moral character; and that he has conducted himself in an irreproachable manner during his stay in the Philippines. However, at the time of the filing of the petition, Leni Chua was already living in Cebu, while Al was living with Babes Toh in Manila, with whom he has an amorous relationship. After his direct testimony, Al Chua withdrew his petition for naturalization. What crime or crimes, if any, did Al Chua commit? Explain. 

Suggested Answer:

Al Chua committed perjury. His declaration under oath for naturalization that he is of good moral character and residing at Sampaloc, Manila are false. This information is material to his petition for naturalization. He committed perjury for this willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood which is contained in a verified petition made for a legal purpose. (Choa v. People, G.R. No. 142011, March 14, 2003)