ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 138301. June 21, 1999]

RONALDO G. PADOLINA, ET AL. vs. GO CHIN HUA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 21, 1999.

G.R. No. 138301 (Ronaldo G. Padolina, Teody Fabros and Prospero Pesta�o vs. Go Chin Hua, Tito M. Gepiala, and the Hon. Court of Appeals.)

Petitioners assails the decision of the Court of Appeals which quashed the case against respondents.

The present controversy stemmed from an information for perjury which was filed against private respondent based on statements they made in the complains-affidavits they lodged before the Office of the Ombudsman as initiatory acts of instituting a criminal case against petitioners.

On March 5, 1997, private respondent filed a motion to quash arguing that the facts charged in the information failed to constitute an offense since the fourth element of perjury is absent, the trial court denied the motion.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed. Hence, the instant petition.

The petition is unavailing.

Initially, the Court notes that the petition was filed late and the legal fees were paid late on April 24, 1999, due date being February 25, 1999. These lapses are sufficient reasons to deny the petition peremptorily.

Over and above these technical flaws, however, is that this Curt finds nothing erroneous in the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals for said decision is based on Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code which provides:

Art. 183. False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correcional 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 e competent person authorized to administer an oath in cases in which the law so requires.

Any person who, in case of a solemn affirmation 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.

Corollarily, Section 12, Article XI of the Constitution provides:

Sec. 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the Government or any subdivision agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases notify the complainants of the action taken and the result thereof.

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 containing the falsity is required by law.

The alleged false statements having been made in complaints-affidavits filed by private respondents with the Office of the Ombudsman and sworn to before a competent officer authorized to receive and administer oaths, the first two elements of perjury exist. The third element is a matter of evidence. However, the fourth element is notably absent since it is clear that the complaints filed before the Office of the Ombudsman may be in any form or manner. On this point, the Court has ruled that as a rule, pleadings need not be verified unless otherwise required by the Rules of Court and no rules require that complaints for damages, as in the case before us, be under oath. Since the complaints filed by respondents against petitioner are not required to be verified, the fourth essential element of the crime of perjury that the sworn statement containing the falsity is required by law, is absent. Consequently, respondents cannot be prosecuted on the basis of an alleged falsehood made in a verified pleading which is not mandated by law to be verified (Flordeslis vs. Hinalaloan, 84 SCRA 477).

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE