People v Cabero |61 Phil. 121



FACTS: Accused Hilaria Cabero presented a written complaint, statement and affidavit to the court of the justice of peace, duly subscribed and sworn to by her before the justice of the peace, when in fact she well knew that the said complaint, statement and affidavit were false and untrue. She was charged with the crime of perjury. However, the lower court dismissed the information as it does not fall under Art. 183 of the RPC or  Art. 180 of the said Code. Hence, the Solicitor- General brought this appeal.

ISSUE: Can a false affidavit in a complaint give rise to perjury?

HOLDING: The indictment in the complaint closely follows Art. 183 and alleges every fact required by that article. An affidavit was made upon material matters before the competent person authorized to administer an oath required by law. It is further clearly alleged that the accused well knew that the affidavit in question made by her was false and untrue upon the material matters recited. It would seem that the court had the opinion that an affidavit to a criminal complaint has an entirely different status from an ordinary affidavit for other purposes.
In the case of People v. Rivera (1933, 59 Phil. 236), the court held that a false affidavit was not a violation of Art. 363 of the RPC but did not hold that it would not violate Art. 183 of the RPC. The indictment in the present case is more complete that in the Rivera case in that it has an express allegation of guilty knowledge. The holding of the trial court that the complaint did not properly change as offense was therefore erroneous.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

People vs. Sunico, et al [C.A., 50 o.g. 5880]

FACTS: The accused were election inspectors and poll clerks whose duty among others was to transfer the names of excess voters in other precincts to the list of a newly created precinct.Several voters were omitted in the list.Because their names were not in the list, some of them were not allowed to vote. The accused were prosecuted for violation of Secs. 101 and 103 of the Revised Election Code. The accused claimed that they made the omission in good faith.The trial court seemed to believe that notwithstanding the fact that the accused committed in good faith the serious offense charged, the latter are criminally responsible therefor, because such offense is malum prohibitum, and, consequently, the act constituting the same need not be committed with malice or criminal intent to be punishable. ISSUE: Is the act of the accused merely a mala prohibita? HELD: The acts of the accused cannot be merely mala prohibita - they are mala in se . The omission or failure to include a voter’s...
Read more

US v. Serapio [23 P 584]

FACTS: Defendant was charged with the crime of libel. Upon said complaint the defendant was duly arraigned. Upon arraignment the defendant, by his attorneys, presented the following demurrer:I. The facts alleged in the complaint do not constitute a crime. II. It appears from the allegation in the complaint that if there were a crime it has prescribed. With reference to the second ground, counsel for the defense maintains that the crime has prescribed under the provisions of the laws in force in the Islands and supports such conclusion by asserting that in the absence of a definite provision in Act No. 277 of the Philippine Commission, which fixes the time during which the penal action arising from the crime of libel may be exercised, the time which article 131 of the Penal Code fixes for the prescription of the crimes of calumny and insults is strictly applicable. Against this contention of the defense, the Attorney-General and the private prosecutor maint...
Read more

People v Macatanda [109 S 35]

FACTS: Charged with and convicted on a plea of guilty, in the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, Branch IV in Iligan City, for the crime of cattle rustling, Saglala Macatanda. From the judgment of conviction, Saglala Macatanda (hereinafter referred to as appellant) appealed direct to this Court. The Solicitor General comes up with a reply that Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code does not apply to penalties prescribed by special laws. He considers P.D. 533, otherwise known as "Anti- Cattle Rustling Law of 1974" as a special law, and in accordance with existing rulings, 8 the penalty should not be governed by the Revised Penal Code. ISSUE: Whether the contention of the Solicitor-General is valid. RULING: The court do not agree with the Solicitor General that P.D. 533 is a special law, entirely distinct from and unrelated to the Revised Penal Code. From the nature of the penalty imposed which is in terms of the classification and duration of penalties as prescribe...
Read more