People v. Capistrano [40 Phil. 902]

FACTS: Accused-appellant Barbara Capistrano stated under oath two contradictory statement: one before the Assistant prosecutor who conducted the preliminary investigation before filing the information against her father Alejo Capistrano for Rape, statement whereby she was accusing the latter of the said crime; and another before the Court of first instance at the hearing of the same cause for rape, saying that the one call Juan Sol, and that for her fear to the latter who had threatened her, she made the former statement before the fiscal imputing the commission of the crime to his father. In view thereof, the fiscal filed a case against her for the crime of perjury.

ISSUE: WON the two contradictory sworn statement are enough to convict the accused of perjury.

HOLDING: The Court ruled that in order to hold the accused guilty of the crime of perjury, it was necessary to prove that she did not believe said testimony as true or, what amounts to the same thing, that which she testified to before the CFI was not true.
A conviction for perjury cannot be sustained merely upon the contradictory sworn statement of the accused, but the prosecution must prove which of the two statements is false and must show that statement to be false by other evidence that the contradictory statement. One who is thus accused for having given under oath a statement contradictory to the one given in a former examination, has the right to prove that the statement formerly given by him was induced by threats and duress.

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