CRIMINAL LAW II REVIEWER

JURISPRUDENCE
ART 114- TREASON
1. US VS LAGNASON
2. Laurel vs Misa
In G.R. No. L-409, Anastacio Laurel vs. Eriberto Misa, etc., the Court, acting on the petition
for habeas corpus filed by Anastacio Laurel and based on a theory that a Filipino citizen who
adhered to the enemy giving the latter aid and comfort during the Japanese occupation cannot be
prosecuted for the crime of treason defined and penalized by article 114 of the Revised Penal
Code, for the reason (1) that the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines and,
consequently, the correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens thereto was then suspended; and (2)
that there was a change of sovereignty over these Islands upon the proclamation of the Philippine
Republic.
Considering that the absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory occupied
by the enemy of their legitimate government or sovereign is not abrogated or severed by the
enemy occupation, because the sovereignty of the government or sovereign de jure is not
transferred thereby to the occupier, as we have held in the cases of Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan
Keh and Dizon (75 Phil., 113) and of Peralta vs. Director of Prisons (75 Phil., 285), and if it is
not transferred to the occupant it must necessarily remain vested in the legitimate government.
Considering that the crime of treason against the government of the Philippines defined and
penalized in article 114 of the Penal Code, though originally intended to be a crime against said
government as then organized by authority of the sovereign people of the United States, exercised
through their authorized representative, the Congress and the President of the United States, was
made, upon the establishment of the Commonwealth Government in 1935, a crime against the
Government of the Philippines established by authority of the people of the Philippines, in whom
the sovereignty resides according to section 1, Article II, of the Constitution of the Philippines, by
virtue of the provision of section 2, Article XVI thereof, which provides that "All laws of the
Philippine Islands . . . shall remain operative, unless inconsistent with this Constitution . . . and all
references in such laws to the Government or officials of the Philippine Islands, shall be
construed, in so far as applicable, to refer to the Government and corresponding officials under
this constitution;
Petition dismissed.
3. US vs Delos Reyes
Testimony by an officer as to a confession made to him by the accused will not support a
conviction of treason, as a confession of this crime, to be effective, must be made in open court.
The mere acceptance of the commission by the defendant, nothing else being done, was not an
overt act of treason within the meaning of the law. Blackstone says that "as treason is the highest
civil crime which (considered as a member of the community) any ,an can possibly commit, it
ought, therefore, to be the most freely ascertained.
Defendant is acquitted.

4. PP vs Agoncillo
Regardless of the writer's view on suspension of political laws and change of sovereignty as
heretofore expressed, the Court is of the opinion that the overt acts imputed to the appellant have
not been duly proven. With respect to the sale of 300 kilos of alum crystals, the testimony of the
prosecution witness Lorenzo Barria to the effect that the price was P3 a kilo, is not corroborated
by any other witness. With respect to the alleged sale of 100 pieces of water pipes, counsel for the
appellee admits that the price thereof was not known. An essential part of the overt act charged in
the information was therefore lacking. No pretense was made that the appellant donated the
articles in question. The alleged delivery of truck and auto tires, batteries and spare parts can be
disregarded. The only detail that may at most be considered established by the prosecution refers
to the fact that the appellant helped in pushing a handcart loaded with such articles, and the
evidence is even uncertain in one respect, namely that the cart was brought either to the
intermediate school premises or the high school building. Indeed it was acknowledged by the
lower court that the witnesses for the Government did not know how the appellant disposed of the
articles loaded in the cart.
Even supposing, however, that the appellant had really sold for a definite price alum crystals and
water pipes, the same did not per se constitute treason. As said articles or materials were not
exclusively for war purposes, their sale did not necessarily carry an intention on the part of the
vendor to adhere to the enemy. The theory of the prosecution is that the sale was treasonable in
view of the other proven acts showing appellant's adherence to the enemy. It appears, however,
that the alleged acts of adherence performed by the appellant took place after the overt act in
question. It is not unlikely that at the time the appellant made the sale, his motive was purely
personal gain, uninfluenced by any benefit inuring to the enemy. Where two probabilities arise
from the evidence, the one compatible with the presumption of innocence will be adopted
5. PP vs Perez
If furnishing women for immoral purposes to the enemies was treason because women's company
kept up their morale, so fraternizing with them, entertaining them at parties, selling them food
and drinks, and kindred acts, would be treason. For any act of hospitality without doubt produces
the same general result. yet by common agreement those and similar manifestation of sympathy
and attachment are not the kind of disloyalty that are punished as treason.
In a broad sense, the law of treason does not prescribe all kinds of social, business and political
intercourse between the belligerent occupants of the invaded country and its inhabitants. In the
nature of things, the occupation of a country by the enemy is bound to create relations of all sorts
between the invaders and the natives. What aid and comfort constitute treason must depend upon
their nature degree and purpose.
As general rule, to be treasonous the extent of the aid and comfort given to the enemies must be
to render assistance to them as enemies and not merely as individuals and in addition, be directly
in furtherance of the enemies' hostile designs. To make a simple distinction: To lend or give
money to an enemy as a friend or out of charity to the beneficiary so that he may buy personal

as an overt act. which. which. It furnished the enemy aid in that his cause was advanced. Such membership by its very nature gave the enemy aid and comfort. The acts herein charged were not. unlike overt acts. That is treason. in the absence of admission. But membership as a Makapili. to lend or give him money to enable him to buy arms or ammunition to use in waging war against the giver's country enhance his strength and by same count injures the interest of the government of the giver. being a Makapili is in itself constitutive of an overt act. were "to accomplish the fulfillment of the obligations assumed by the Philippines in the Pact of Alliance with the Empire of Japan. need not be proved by the oaths of two witnesses." "to collaborate unreservedly and unstintedly with the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy in the Philippines. Only guilty of rape." and "to fight the common enemies. Unless forced upon one against his will. At the same time. on this point it cannot be said that one witness is corroborated by another if corroboration means that two witnesses have seen the accused doing at least one particular thing. The crime of treason was committed if he placed himself at the enemy's call to fight side by side with him when the opportune time came even though an opportunity never presented itself. or from the nature of the act itself. by fair implication. considering the purposes for which the organization was created. PP vs Adriano Yet. his forces augmented. Intent of disloyalty is a vital ingredient in the crime of treason. that the defendant actually went to battle or committed nefarious acts against his country or countrymen. and unintentional. and his courage was enhanced by the knowledge that he could count on men such as the accused and his kind who were ready to strike at their own people. according to the evidence. must be established by the deposition of two witnesses. it a routine military chore. or just walking or eating. Sexual and social relations with the Japanese did not directly and materially tend to improve their war efforts or to weaken the power of the United State.necessities is to assist him as individual and is not technically traitorous. The principal effect of it was no difference from that of enlisting in the invader's army. again. 6. It is not necessary. membership in the Makapili organization imports treasonable intent. The enemy derived psychological comfort in the knowledge that he had on his side nationals of the country with which his was at war. or from the circumstances surrounding the act. On the other hand. imperceptible. calculated to strengthen the Japanese Empire or its army or to cripple the defense and resistance of the other side." Adherence. may be gathered from the nature and circumstances of each particular case. Whatever favorable effect the defendant's collaboration with the Japanese might have in their prosecution of the war was trivial. Criminal intent and knowledge may be gather from the testimony of one witness. We take it that the mere fact of having joined a Makapili organization is evidence of both adherence to the enemy and giving him aid and comfort. . except for the purpose of increasing the punishment." "to shed blood and sacrifice the lives of our people in order to eradicate Anglo-Saxon influence in East Asia.

the defendant.The Philippine law on treason is of Anglo-American origin and so we have to look for guidance from American sources on its meaning and scope. that said accused did tie and torture the aforesaid person and cut a portion of their ears. flowing from other testimony of a most trustworthy witness or from other sources are unavailing as a substitute for the needed corroboration in the form of direct testimony of another eyewitness to the same overt act. The appellant was before the outbreak of the last war a corporal of the Manila Harbor Police and. in its setting. That the matter had no treasonous significance is shown by the further fact that those arrested were confined for almost the whole period of their detention in the provincial jail. to sustain a finding that the accused actually gave aid and comfort to the enemy. is entitled to discharge. . It opined that the killing were murders qualified by treachery and aggravated by the circumstances of evident premeditation superior strength cruelty and an armed band. regardless of any moral conviction of the culprit's guilt as gauged and tested by the ordinary and natural methods. PP vs Dumapit Aside from the fact that the appellant denied having had any hand in the arrest in question. feloniously and treasonably lead guide and accompany a patrol of 13 constabulary soldiers and did arrest and apprehend Fortunato Linares for being guerrillas and or guerrilla supporters. Viewing the case from the standpoint of modifying circumstances the court believed that the same result obtained. 8. "The very minimum function that an overt act must perform in a treason prosecution is that it shows sufficient action by the accused. and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses. Natural inferences. however strong or conclusive. of finding the truth. PP v Roble Accused being a soldier of the Philippines Constabulary did then and there wilfully." This provision is so exacting and so uncompromising in regard to the amount of evidence that where two or more witnesses give oaths to an overt act and only one of them is believed by the court or jury. 7. was even the one who was entrusted with the task of taking the personal properties of the family of President Quezon to the motorship Edil. with which we are familiar. Acquittal. the circumstance remains that said arrest was effected as a result of the common crime of arson. movement. upon order of his chief Alejo Valdes. the tortures being so severe especially with respect to Antolin Rodriguez who effectively died as a result of said tortures administered by the accused. it has been said and held. deed. The immediate background of the appellant is further refutation of the likelihood that he had any treasonable intent. and not in the Japanese garrison. Every act. The court held that the facts alleged in the information is a complex crime of treason with murders with the result that the penalty provided for the most serious offense was to be imposed on its maximum degree.

reflective and persistent determination and planning. The first three circumstances are by their nature inherent in the offense of treason and may not taken to aggravate the penalty. human treatment of prisoners. US v Bautista The case at bar is to be distinguished from these and like cases by the fact that the record clearly disclose that the accused actually and voluntarily accepted the apppointment in question and in doing so assumed all the obligations implied by such acceptance. the killing themselves and other accompanying crime should be taken into consideration for measuring the degree and gravity of criminal responsibility irrespective of the manner in which they were committed. The torture and murders set forth in the information are merged in and formed part of treason. Rapes. For the very reason that premeditation treachery and use of superior strength are absorbed inn treason characterized by killings. aside from the possession of commissions in an insurgent band. The atrocities above mentioned of which the appellant is beyond doubt guilty fall within the terms of the above paragraphs. and that the charge in this case is that of conspiracy. Article 115 Conspiracy and proposal to commit Treason 1. The trial court found the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation superior strength treachery and employment of means for adding ignominy to the natural effects of the crime. wanton robbery for personal grain and other forms of cruelties are condemned and the perpetration of these will be regarded as aggravating circumstances of ignominy and of deliberately augmenting unnecessary wrong to the main criminal objective under paragraphs 17 and 21 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code. So are superior strength and treachery included in the crime of treason. Nuñez et al. In conformance with the decisions of the Federal courts of the United States. fixed.We think this is error. that the crime of conspiring to commit treason is a separate and distinct offense from the crime of treason. Treachery is merged in superior strength There is no incompatibility between treason and decent.wherein the accused were charged with brigandage. and that this constitutional provision is not applicable in such cases. In the United States vs. Emotional or intellectual attachment and sympathy with the foe unaccompanied by the giving of aid and comfort is not treason. -. and the fact that the accused accepted the appointment is taken into consideration merely as evidence of his criminal relations with the conspirators. there was no . They were in this case the overt acts which besides traitorous intention supplied a vital ingredient in the crime. Adherence and the giving of aid and comfort to the enemy is in many cases as in this a long continued process requiring for the successful consummation of the traitor's purpose. The defendant would not be guilty of treason if he had not committed the atrocities in question. the court held that.

Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code. unlawfully and feloniously fire upon. did then and there. though neutral to war. "for those limits. 1991. wilfully. against whom the only evidence of record was "the fact that a so-called appointment of sergeant was found at his house. Furlong [1820]. does not constitute sufficient proof of the guilt of the defendant. it was contended that de la Serna had confessed that "he was one of the members of the pulajanes. To summarize. All of the elements of the crime of piracy are present." (U.evidence to show that it they had committed the crime and.. It may be punished in the competent tribunal of any country where the offender may be found or into which he may be carried. 5 Wheat. then manning a motor launch and armed with high powered guns. provided that piracy must be committed on the high seas by any person not a member of its complement nor a passenger . that it appeared that they had never united with any party of brigands and never had been in any way connected with such parties unless the physical possession of these appointments proved such relation. hence the doctrine laid down in that decision. Nor does it matter that the crime was committed within the jurisdictional 3-mile limit of a foreign state. without lawful authority and done animo furandi. employing violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. 1991. de la Serna et al." but the court was of opinion that the evidence did not sustain a finding that such confession had in fact been made. and for sometime prior and subsequent thereto." Article 122 Piracy PP vs Lol lo The proven facts are not disputed. vs. then direct the vessel to proceed to Singapore where the cargoes were unloaded and thereafter returned to the Philippines on April 10." United States vs.S. are not neutral to crimes. Piracy is a crime not against any particular state but against all mankind. board and seize while in the Philippine waters M/T PNOC TABANGCO loaded with petroleum products. Piracy is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas. in violation of the aforesaid law. "moreover.) PP v Tulin That on or about and during the period from March 2 to April 10. 184. the said accused. both dates inclusive. As it is against all so may it be punished by all. "that the mere possession of such an appointment. conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another." and that it appeared that each one of the defendants "were separately approached at different times by armed men while working in the field and were virtually compelled to accept the commissions. when it is not shown that the possessor executed some external act by the virtue of the same. before its amendment. with a commission as colonel. together with the complement and crew members. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court." applies only the case of Enrique Camonas. The jurisdiction of piracy unlike all other crimes has no territorial limits. and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility.

As aptly pointed out by the respondents insofar as the complaint of Rodolfo Soria is concerned. 313. it is an exception to the rule on territoriality in criminal law.) In the instant case. piracy under the Article 122. 532 exist harmoniously as separate laws. Publicity. any person is covered by the law. Uykhetin vs Villareal It was urged (1) that the search warrant of April 30th was illegal because the requisites prescribed by the General Orders No. 129.thereof. not with a violation of qualified piracy under the penal code but under a special law. The affidavit required by law was made.m. were charged. As such. while it appears that the complaints against Soria for Illegal Possession of Firearm and Violation of COMELEC Resolution No. as amended. Orosco. an election day or a special holiday. The same principle applies even if Hiong. under Presidential Decree No. 7659. there could be no arbitrary detention or violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code to speak of. Presidential Decree No. the coverage of the law on piracy embraces any person including "a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel in Philippine waters. a failure. 200[1] at 4:30 p. it being a no-office day. a member of the complement or not. (Medina vs. passenger or not." On the other hand. It is a general practice to issue search warrants on a single affidavit. Prosecutor Jessica [Viloria]. If one witness may be sufficient to convict a man of the gravest crime. by the respondents. piracy falls under Title One of Book Two of the Revised Penal Code.m. Ilocos Sur. (2) that the searches and seizures made on May 1st had been made without any semblance of authority and hence illegal. 2001 at about 6:30 p. certainly one affidavit should be sufficient for a judge to issue a search warrant upon.Search Warrants maliciously obtained 1. 58 had not been complied with in its issuance. in the instant case." Hence. which would ordinarily follow the presentation of witnesses or even getting more than one affidavit. 3328 were filed with the Regional Trial Court and Municipal Trial Court of Narvacan. To require more than one or to require witnesses to be presented. the coverage of the pertinent provision was widened to include offenses committed "in Philippine waters. and protecting him against unreasonable searches and seizures.. and piracy under Presidential Decree No. Hence. if not assure. he had already been released the day before or on May 14. only on May 15. would add to the law and would defeat the very object of a search warrant. ART. should not be included in the computation of the period prescribed by law for the filing of complaint/information in courts in cases of warrantless arrests. 125 Phil. and (3) that the seizure of the defendants' books and letters was a violation of the provisions of the Jones Law providing that no person shall be compelled to testify against himself. . would invite. as directed by Prov. which is to seize evidence of crime before it can be destroyed. Moreover. based on applicable laws and jurisprudence. Upon its amendment by Republic Act No. 532 which penalizes piracy in Philippine waters ARTICLE 125 – Delay in the delivery of detained persons 1. 532 (issued in 1974).

but. denied the claims. it does not follow that such declarations are sufficient proof. 134. and pursuant to a common intent. EVIDENCE. DBP vs Radio Mindanao Network The insurance companies maintained that the evidence showed that the fire was caused by members of the Communist Party of the Philippines/New People’s Army (CPP/NPA). this City. by then and there applying for the same and filing a deposition of witness in support of the application for search warrant before the Court the Court of First Instance.Rebellion 1. the evidence adduced is insufficient for a finding that the crime committed was politically motivated.: The Court finds the foregoing to be insufficient to establish that the cause of the fire was the intentional burning of the radio facilities by the rebels or an act of insurrection. — The motive of the person accused of illegal procurement of search warrants may be established. PP vs Dela Pena SEARCH WARRANTS. HOW ESTABLISHED. also by acts posterior to the issuance of the process. or coetaneous with.conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other. viz. rebellion or usurped power. and by that reason and on account of said application and deposition the said accused succeeded in procuring from the said court a search warrant against Ty Kong Tek CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER Art. 2. Alleged. This court has invariably viewed the defense of frame-up with disfavor. Prov Prosecutor vs CA . Evidence that persons who burned the radio facilities shouted "Mabuhay ang NPA" does not furnish logical conclusion that they are member [sic] of the NPA or that their act was an act of rebellion or insurrection. such as. and consequently. And the trial court aptly noted that there is a need for additional convincing proof. Neither have the appellants sufficiently proven their allegation that the present case was filed against them because they are rebel surrenderees. ILLEGAL PROCUREMENT OF SEARCH WARRANTS. Like the defense of alibi. 3. willfully. not only by acts preceding. Merely because it is alleged that appellants were members of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front or of the Moro National Liberation Front does not necessarily mean that the crime of kidnapping was committed in furtherance of a rebellion. Pp vs Silongan The political motivation for the crime must be shown in order to justify finding the crime committed to be rebellion. Here. an attempt to extort money as a condition precedent to the release of the complaint. unlawfully and feloniously procure a search warrant without a just cause. it can be just as easily concocted.2. Even assuming that the declaration of the bystanders that it was the members of the CPP/NPA who caused the fire may be admitted as evidence. These declarations should be calibrated vis-à-vis the other evidence on record. did then and there. the commission of the offense charged.

further. but rebellion. 4. from the language of this article. the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed.Whether. and other crimes and offenses committed in the furtherance (sic) on the occasion thereof. Hernandez. murder. His arrest was based on "probable cause. and. This Resolution ends as it began. The Court predicated the validity of the questioned arrests without warrant in these petitions. but on compliance with the conditions set forth in Section 5. does not apply when the culprit is guilty of only one crime Another Angle: . UMIL vs RAMOS Issue: mere suspicion that one is Communist Party or New People's Army member is a valid ground for his arrest without warrant s a general rule. or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other. even before the start of trial. aside from their essentially involving a massive conspiracy of nationwide magnitude. If an NPA fighter (terrorist. not on mere unsubstantiated suspicion. arson.” Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary “When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. PP vs Hernandez – READ! Rebellion with multiple murder.” t is obvious. or incident thereto. and. are all in the nature of continuing offenses which set them apart from the common offenses. on the basis of. the prosecution can be ordered to change the information which it had filed on the ground that the evidence presented at the preliminary investigation shows that the crime committed is not murder with multiple frustrated murder. for stress. a long existing law. Nor can it be said that Dural's arrest was grounded on mere suspicion by the arresting officers of his membership in the CPP/NPA. except in those cases express authorized by law. More than the allure of popularity or palatability to some groups." as supported by actual facts that will be shown hereafter. and which. Rule 113. the only crime he has committed is rebellion because all those common crimes are absorbed in the latter one pursuant to the ruling in People v. reiterating that mere suspicion of being a Communist Party member or a subversive is absolutely not a ground for the arrest without warrant of the suspect. the same to be applied in its maximum period. in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof. what is important is that the Court be right. the actual facts and circumstances supporting the arrests. The crimes of insurrection or rebellion. 2045. robbery. “Then follows a description of the murders. The ultimate objective of the NPA/NDF is to overthrow the constitutional democratic Philippine Government and supplant it with a government anchored on the communist ideology. according to the military lexicon) commits homicide. no peace officer or person has the power or authority to arrest anyo without a warrant of arrest. hence. illegal possession of firearms and ammunition in furtherance or on the occasion of his revolutionary pursuit. conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes. arsons and robberies. subversion. 5. are probable cause and good faith of the arresting peace officers. as the records show. or in connection therewith under Presidential Proclamation No. arsons and robberies allegedly perpetrated by the accused “as a necessary means to commit the crime of rebellion. Rules of Court. that the same presupposes the commission of two (2) or more crimes. The New People’s Army (NPA) is the armed component of the Communist Party in this country called the National Democratic Front (NDF).

presumably dissidents. Does his or anyone's membership in the Communist Party per se render Hernandez or any Communist guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion under the provisions of Article 136 of the Revised Penal Code? The advocacy of Communism or Communistic theory and principle is not to be considered as a criminal act of conspiracy unless transformed or converted into an advocacy of action. because of the opportunity offered by the confusion and disorder resulting from the shooting and the burning of the three houses. immediate and positive. the enforcement of which was entrusted to them. the actual agreement to start an uprising or rebellion or an agreement forged to use force and violence in an uprising of the working class to overthrow constituted authority and seize the reins of Government itself. mere advocacy of a theory or principle is insufficient unless the communist advocates action. lawphi1. and not of rebellion according to section 3 of the same law. 2. For these robberies. assisting in the construction of the fort. The acts of the appellant as thus explained and analyzed fall under the category of acts of propaganda. the object was to attain by means of force. The raiders did not even attack the Presidencia. constitute the crime of sedition. to wit. was an active advocate of the principles of Communism. In the very nature of things. Rather. 292. The robberies were actually committed by only some of the raiders.net . however. that in the day preceding the incident he was in the fort. one object. it appears that he was one of those who took an oath on the Koran to oppose the Government by force.Amado V. the seat of local Government. he returned early the following morning and was found in the fort when the Government forces appeared. Under Article 139 of the same Code this was sufficient to constitute sedition. as an afterthought. Tahil vs Tarson In regard to Datu Tarson. that he took part in all the activities of the movement. and not the three appellants herein. throught force. which he dubbed as a regime of puppets of American imperialism.Sedition 1. and while he left in the afternoon. from complying with their duties in connection with the judicial order. but do not prove that he actually and in fact conspired with the leaders of the Communist Party in the uprising or in the actual rebellion. etc. The purpose of the raid and the act of the raiders in rising publicly and taking up arms was not exactly against the Government and for the purpose of doing the things defined in Article 134 of the Revised Penal code under rebellion. as a Communist. the acts committed being limited to preventing the Government officials. the articles being intended presumably to replenish the supplies of the dissidents in the mountains. defined in section 5 of Act No. Hernandez. to inflict an act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of a public official.We are convinced that the principal and main. tho not necessarily the most serious. crime committed here was not rebellion but rather that of sedition. intimidation. But beyond the open advocacy of Communistic Theory there appears no evidence that he actually participated in the actual conspiracy to overthrow by force the constituted authority. namely. only those who actually took part therein are responsible. Artilce 139. Umali . Punzalan was then Mayor of Tiaong. frequently exhorting his hearers to follow the footsteps of Taruc and join the uprising of the laboring classes against capitalism and more specifically against America and the Quirino administration. for which acts he is charged in the information. The facts proven.

Sedition is a crime against public order. US vs Abad - ARTICLE 148. and the general public tranquillity. 2. Sedition is a crime directed against the existence of the State. EDWARD M. without a public uprising. Lt.S. the lieutenant ordered the truck driver to return from where he came.INCITING TO SEDITION 1. for he has killed our independence.The Filipinos. Abad [1902]. Direct assault. shall employ force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition. murder is a crime against persons. (U. or on occasion of such performance. in defiance of such lawful order. commanded the . express implied.Sedition is not the same offense as murder. Cabrera. which is the more common form of assault and is aggravated when: (a) the assault is committed with a weapon.DIRECT ASSAULT 1. without a public uprising. 1-91. a crime against public order. the authority of the government. Leygo was engaged in the actual performance of his official duties. v. must use bolos for cutting off Wood's head for having recommended a bad thing for the Filipinos. shall attack. or (b) when the offender is a public officer or employee. Unquestionably. by then and there challenging the latter to a fistfight and thereafter grappling and hitting the said policeman on his face. by any person or persons who. It is a matter of record that at the time of the assault. 437. employ force and seriously resist one Lt. in the peace of the sovereign with malice aforethought. knowing him to be a policeman. Pp vs Perez. and second. ARTICLE 142. 1 Phil. unlawfully and feloniously attack. may be committed in two ways: first. did then and there wilfully. Rivera vs PP The above-named accused. murder at common law is where a person of sound mind and discretion unlawfully kills any human being. while engaged in the performance of official duties. LEYGO. but petitioner. like myself. by any person or persons who.3.. petitioners case falls under the second mode. thus injuring him in the process while the latter was actually engaged in the performance of his official duties. murder is a crime directed against the lives of individuals. or (c) when the offender lays hand upon a person in authority. or seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or any of his agents. Because the unloading of chicken dung was a violation of La Trinidad Municipal Ordinance No. employ force.) Sedition in its more general sense is the raising of commotions or disturbances in the state. He was wearing the designated police uniform and was on board a police car conducting a routinary patrol when he first came upon the truck unloading chicken manure.

the place where the truck was first intercepted. EVIDENCE. don’t move. At this moment Rabe called "police! police!" Gregorio Glindo. An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer. 2. 2. at the time the arrest is made. offered grave resistance by refusing to submit himself to arrest and by striking at the policeman with a knife. the lieutenant had every reason to assume it did return for the purpose of unloading its cargo of chicken dung. When the policeman heard these cries for help he was only a very short distance — some 6 or 8 brazas — away. then proceeded to maltreat him. Under these facts and circumstances it was the duty of this police officer to stop this disturbance by placing the defendant under arrest.. hearing these words went to the scene. although at a distance. a municipal policeman of Pitogo. Although the policeman was not wounded or touched by the accused. or hears the disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof. REASONABLE DOUBT." The appellant was not arrested on that night on account of this resistance. neither did he see him kick the said priest. when the officer sees the offense. and when he arrived the trouble had not terminated. thus stopped it from doing so. — The exemption from criminal . or has not been consummated. — A conviction of the grave offense of atentado (assault upon or resistance offered to persons in authority or their agents) cannot be sustained in any case in which a reasonable doubt arises as to whether the accused knew or ought to have known that the persons assaulted or resisted were in fact persons in authority or their agents. and on being informed that the same truck had returned. provided that the assault or resistance offered would have been justifiable in the event that the persons assaulted or resisted had not been persons in authority or their agents. arriving just as the offended party was getting up. being on patrol duty that night in said barrio. He did not lay hands on or touch with his knife either the policeman or the councilman. US vs Samonte On meeting there they became engaged in quarrel.truck driver to return to Shilan. but he did refuse to submit himself to the authorities. saying "police! police!" and when he arrived on the scene the priest was just getting up and freeing himself from the Appellant. US v Alvear ASSAULT UPON PERSONS IN AUTHORITY. SELF-DEFENSE IN RESISTING ARREST. or the offense is continuing. and attempted to arrest the appellant. although no active fighting took place after his arrival. saying to him: "In the name of the United States. thereby attempting a personal injury. the appellant knocking or pushing Rabe down. after an attempt had been made to arrest him by a duly authorized police officer in the discharge of his duty as such. but he heard the cries of the priest calling for help. 3. within the meaning of the rule authorizing an arrest without a warrant. and resisted arrest. ID. The policeman did not see the appellant knock the priest down. these facts do not relieve him from criminal responsibility. The accused in this case.

if the person assaulted were not a police officer in the lawful performance of his duties. that the person assaulted was a police officer acting in the performance of his duties as such. who without lawful authority had entered the house and physically assaulted the first man and woman they found there.. a party of 100 persons. The exemption from criminal liability which is extended to anyone who acts in defense of his own person or rights from unlawful aggression.Tumults and other disturbances 1. and that all of the accused promptly surrendered and offered no further resistance when the third Constabulary soldier in uniform came up into the house and put them under arrest. must be held to include one who assaults or resists a police officer under circumstances which would justify the assault or resistance. more or less. Ah Chong. Drilon vs Ermita EO 464 ARTICLE 153. that is to say. under article 8 of the Penal Code must be held to include one who assaults or resists a police officer under circumstances which would justify the assault or resistance. (Art. if not . if the person assaulted were not a police officer in the lawful performance of his duties.S. (U. provided that the assault or resistance offered would have been justifiable in the event that the persons assaulted or resisted had not been persons in authority or their agents. that the person assaulted was a police officer acting in the performance of his duties as such. US v DOMINGO A public meeting for the purpose of furthering his candidacy on the evening of the day before the election. composed largely. that immediately thereafter a violent altercation arose. Rep. and had no reasonable grounds to believe.) ARTICLE 150 – Disobedience to summons 1. 488. A conviction of the grave offense of atentado (assault upon or resistance offered to persons in authority or their agents) cannot be sustained in any case in which a reasonable doubt arises as to whether the accused knew or ought to have known that the persons assaulted or resisted were in fact persons in authority or their agents. 15 Phil. Penal Code. two strangers. when it further appears that the person making the assault did not know. all of the witnesses agree that the two Constabulary soldiers entered the house in plain clothes. under article 8 of the Penal Code. when it further appears that the person making the assault did not know. but the assault and resistance would have been wholly justifiable if these men had been what they seemed to be to the occupants of the house. at the same time threatening their victims with a revolver if they moved or gave an alarm.liability which is extended to any one who acts in defense of his own person or rights from unlawful aggression. v.) That these accused assaulted and resisted the police officers who entered the house in plain clothes is not denied. 1. and had no reasonable grounds to believe.

to hold together the partisans of one set of policies or candidates and to draw away the partisans of opposing policies and candidates. marched down the street to the inspiring airs of a guitar. the fact that numerous meetings were being held at which the citizens and voters called together in public by contending candidates and their partisans for the purpose of inducing or persuading them to support one candidate or the other at the forthcoming election. for instance. in passing upon the question whether a breach of the peace has resulted on such an occasion from the clash of contending wills and the conflict of opposing policies. opinions. Under the provisions of Chapter VI [Title III. object. Book II] of the Penal Code we would be entirely agreed with the trial judge in his characterization of the disturbance of which the defendants were guilty. a criminal breach of the peace can not properly be said to have been committed. under the circumstances. which the authors themselves in a calmer moment would be the first to deprecate. while it undoubtedly tends to disturb the peace and quiet which ordinarily reigns in the community. or. both public and private. In the excitement of a hotly contested campaign. in or about a voting booth. endeavoring by speeches and debate. and not every petty incident should be magnified into a matter of grave import. . of partisans of the opposing candidate for the office of president. the citizen may not pass. but no attempt appears to have been made by the party outside to enter the house or to disturb the meeting inside by any concerted action. had it taken place in connection with the actual holding of an election. And so the courts. marching and countermarching in bands from place to place. unless the disturbance created is such that it exceeds the limits within which the partisans may fairly be required to restrict themselves under the circumstances.exclusively. should keep in mind the actual conditions. Where no municipal ordinance or public law or regulation forbidding such gatherings is violated. does not necessarily involve a criminal breach of the peace or disturbance of public order. it stopped. and conduct of the gathering of which the defendants formed a part. or the place where the votes were being counted. and sentiments. it must not be forgotten that the reprehensible conduct of the partisans does not consist of their assembling together and making public demonstrations. but in exceeding those limits of public order and good behavior beyond which. But we think that under all the circumstances of this case. Some words passed between the members of the crowd on the street and the people at the windows upstairs where the meeting was being held. other than by standing in a large crowd about the doors of the house in such a way as to necessarily distract the attention of those attending the meeting inside by the mere fact that they were doing so. and in imposing a penalty for a breach of the peace on such occasions. perhaps on the public highway along which voters on their way to exercise their right to vote must necessarily pass. Within reasonable limits the candidates and their partisans should be willing to bear and forbear with each other. recognizing that at such a time things are often said and done in the heat of the contest. tends to justify a lenient rather than a severe judgment of the nature. When this party arrived in front of the house where the meeting was being held. and in characterizing such public disorders as do actually arise. some allowances must be made for the tense state of public feeling. as a "grave" or a "gross" disturbance of public order. The assembling of the people together.

as in this case. the Supply officer I of the DOT-ARMM. . or sometime prior or subsequent thereto in Cotabato City. and that upon an examination of these plated coins it was found that they were genuine Philippine copper cents. Pangilan. for the purpose of claiming her salary for the months of August and September 2000. while in the performance of her official functions. that the latter refused to accept it upon noticing what the real value and denomination of the coin was. a high ranking public official being the Regional Secretary of the Department of Tourism in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. the accused NORMALLAH A.c Article 171. notary public or ecclesiastical minister. unlawfully and feloniously falsified her Employee Clearance submitted to the Office of the Regional Governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. as a matter of fact.c There can be no counterfeiting of money when. but which. no spurious or clipped coin was used. that as a result of such refusal a quarrel ensued between them. however. was a Philippine copper cent. which apparently and been whitened with quicksilver to give them the color and brightness of silver. a twenty cent piece. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. taking advantage of her official position. The defendant did not make or attempt to make any alteration in the designs and inscriptions of the said coins. 2000. willfully. that a policeman then interfered. There were not legal grounds upon which a charge for these latter offenses could be based. Pacasum v PP That on or about August 22-23. placed the defendant under arrest and took him to the police station. The acts committed by the defendant for the purpose of defrauding third persons by deceiving them us to the real value of the coins in question constitute the crime of estafa and not of counterfeiting money. that the defendant again insisted that the money be accepted and the owner of the store refused to do so. He did not. Cotabato City.Making. where several Mexican and Japanese coins were found in his possession together with a roll of Philippine copper cents. by imitating the signature of Laura Y.ARTICLE 163. the latter being silver plated. and upon being informed of what had happened. employee. 1. did then and there. committing the offense in relation thereto. The coins in question were genuine copper cents and bore their original designs and inscriptions. PACASUM.Falsification by public officer. that is to say. and identical with the coin which he had attempted to pass at the store as a twenty-cent piece. importing or uttering false coins defendant attempted to pay for a package of cigarettes which he bought at a certain store with what appeared to be silver coin. that he insisted that the owner of the store should accept the same as a peseta. All that he did was to give them the appearance of silver pieces for the purpose of passing them as twenty-cent coins. attempt to imitate the peculiar design of such coins.

the presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification. taking advantage of it and profiting thereby. The effect of a presumption upon the burden of proof is to create the need of presenting evidence to overcome the prima facie case created. if no contrary proof is offered. it is not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person for the reason that in the falsification of a public document. Were it not for her position and employment in the ARMM.[54] It is a settled rule that in the falsification of public or official documents. which. she could not have accomplished said Employees Clearance. the offender is considered to have taken advantage of his official position when (1) he had the duty to make or prepare or otherwise intervene in the preparation of the document. or (2) he had official custody of the document which he falsified. It is to be made clear that the use of a falsified document is separate and distinct from the falsification of a public document. The act of using falsified documents is not necessarily included in the falsification of a public document. Using falsified documents is punished under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. 2. will thereby prevail. In a falsification of public document. In the falsification of a public document. the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.When a person whose signature was affixed to a document denies his/her signature therein.[55] Thus.[69] It being her duty to prepare and submit said document. What is important is the fact that the signature of another was counterfeited. it is immaterial whether or not the contents set forth therein were false. or to have close connection with the forgers. The rule is that if a person had in his possession a falsified document and he made use of it (uttered it). the falsification of the Employees Clearance was consummated the moment the signature of Laura Pangilan was imitated. CSC vs Sta ana . the purpose for which the falsification was made and whether the offender profited or hoped to profit from such falsification are no longer material. This is especially true if the use or uttering of the forged documents was so closely connected in time with the forgery that the user or possessor may be proven to have the capacity of committing the forgery. In the case at bar. she clearly took advantage of her position when she falsified or caused the falsification of her Employees Clearance by imitating the signature of Laura Pangilan. a prima facie case for falsification is established which the defendant must overcome. The presumption is inevitable that she is the material author of the falsification.

in People vs. (2) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him. of the Revised Penal Code. Dismissal and termination of benefits. 3. The law does not require that actual injury to a third person be present. the intent to injure a third person need not be present because the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein proclaimed. By making a false statement in his personal data sheet to enhance his qualification and increase his chances of being considered for promotion. making it appear that respondents were lawfully married on December 8. respondents unlawfully and maliciously conspired to falsify an entry in the Birth Certificate of said child. it was found that respondent Sta. and (4) it was made with a wrongful intent to injure a third person. It does not matter that respondent did not actually assume the position and receive salaries and benefits pertaining thereto. and respondent Ruby Barcenas. making it appear that respondents were lawfully married on December 8. What is necessary is that there be intent to injure. Respondents act of indicating in his personal data sheet that he passed that career service professional examination when in fact he did not. which in fact happened because he was issued an appointment as HRMO III by then Chief Justice Andres Narvasa. when respondents' first illegitimate child Nathaniel Roy was born. par. 1996 at Ramon Magsaysay High School. 1982. Po Giok To. In falsification by false narration of facts. Huerta recommended the filing of a formal charge against respondent. (3) the facts narrated are absolutely false. respondent Nicolas de Guzman (lawfully married to Corazon Punzalan de Guzman). as defined under Art. that when respondents' second illegitimate child Natalia. 1984 (perhaps a typographical error meant to be December 8. Maguad vs de Guzman The complaint[1] alleges that sometime in 1982. 4.[3] Atty.Upon verification by Atty. Dante Huerta. also makes him liable for falsification of a document by making an untruthful statement in a narration of facts. Field Officer of the Civil Service Commission in the Supreme Court. respondents unlawfully and maliciously conspired to falsify an entry in the said child's Birth Certificate. 1982 as in the first Birth Certificate). Ana was not in the CSC-NCR Master List of those who passed the MOWE Career Service Professional Examination given by the Civil Service Commission on February 18. was born in 1984. 1983. Pasay City. 171. (1) the offender makes untruthful statements in a narration of facts.. single. that in October. respondent prejudiced the other qualified aspirants to the same position. Moreover.[30] it is held that when official documents are falsified. The respondents explained that Barcenas was "constrained to supply such erroneous information as regards her civil status solely for purposes of shielding her two children . unlawfully and scandalously cohabited as husband and wife at 137 Ignacio St.

1952.. the disclosure of the truth of the fact alleged to have been falsified. there must be a law requiring. The defendant. PP vs pio giok to said accused. cannot be convicted of the crime of falsification of a public document by a public official. this pay roll. the complainants allege that the respondents committed the offense when they made. as a public official. to wit. and by means of such misrepresentation. In other words. 4. A-1618529 issued to him in the City of Cebu. unlawfully and feloniously falsify. He was convicted in the court below of the crime charged against him and has appealed. The crime thus charged does not depend upon the advantage of profit which the defendant may obtain from the falsification.from the stigma of shame and disgrace that they might encounter in their later years in life by reason of their illegitimacy. or December 8. an entry in the birth certificates of their children that they were married on December 8. With respect to the charge of falsification. Apparently. that it cannot be said that this statement was false. with the falsification of a public document. No law has been shown by the complainants making it either expressly or impliedly a duty of an informant in a record of birth to disclose the truth that the parents of the child covered by it are married or not. through conspiracy. when in fact they were not. Leyte and that his citizenship is Filipino. to wit: by misrepresenting to the said representative of the City Treasurer of Cebu that his name is Antonio Perez. One essential element of this kind of falsification is that there must be a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the fact claimed to be false. on the corresponding lines on said residence . by e representative of the City Treasurer of Cebu. A defendant may be guilty of this crime without in any way profiting thereby. this accusation is predicated on one of the ways of committing falsification. 1984. or forge a public document consisting of residence certificate No. it being alleged that the certificate which he attached thereto was false. therefore. in other words. i. that the vertical lines do not necessarily mean that the person against whose name they appear was present in the building during every hour of the day. with intent to falsify or forge a public document. the charge of falsification against the respondents cannot likewise prosper. expressly or impliedly. and in fact did issue and write. in view of all the testimony in the case. did then and there wilfully. 5. in Davao City. by making untruthful statements in a narration of facts under Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code. that his place of birth is Jaro. Consequently. 1982. on January 7.e. US v Bayot A complaint was filed against the defendant charging him. said representative of the City Treasurer of Cebu was made to issue and write.

while defendant was a principal by inducement. was issued to one Antonio Perez with his place of birth as Jaro. Pacana. the law is clear that wrongful intent on the part of the accused to injure a third person is not an essential element of the crime of falsification of public document. China. A-1618529 dated January 7. 1952. Section 3 Commonwealth Act 465 (otherwise known as the Residence Tax Act) Anent the second element allegedly lacking in the information in question. whether by public officials or by private persons. and with his citizenship as Filipino. A-1618529 the name of Antonio Perez. 47 Phil.. 171. . it is unnecessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person. is inherent in the very nature and purpose of said document. cited by this Court in the case of People vs. and Filipino as his citizenship.certificate No. 1885. Leyte. The defense contends that the information is insufficient for failure to recite two alleged essential elements of the crime charged. The distinction made by the law between falsification by private persons. thus causing it to appear that the said residence certificate No. while the second is committed not only by the performance of any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Art. The sole issue is whether or not the information in question alleges sufficient facts to constitute the crime of falsification of public document. namely. Consequently. viz. i. first.e. and wrongful intent on the part of the accused to injure third persons. the first is committed by the mere performance of any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Art. although it is true that it was the employee of the Office of the City Treasurer of Cebu who performed the overt act of writing the allegedly false facts on the defendant's residence certificate. for the reason that. it was however. the obligation on the part of the accused to disclose the truth as to the facts that should appear in a residence certificate. but it must likewise be shown that such act of falsification was committed to the damage of a third party or with intent to cause such damage. the defendants who induced him to do so by supplying him with those facts. that in the falsification of public or official documents. the employee was defendant's mere innocent agent in the performance of the crime charged. Jaro. is clear. 171. when in truth and in fact. and his citizenship is Chinese. of public documents.. as the accused well knew. in contradiction to private documents. and secondly of private documents. his true name is Po Giok To. Leyte as his place of birth. We agree with the Solicitor-General that the first element allegedly lacking in the information. his place of birth is Amoy. 48. the obligation on the part of the accused to disclose the truth. the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed In the present case. The reason for the distinction is given in a decision of the Supreme Court of Spain dated December 23. as the name of the taxpayer.

it has supplementary application to all special laws. 465 punishes the falsification of residence certificates in the cases mentioned therein does not prevent the application of the general provisions of the Revised Penal Code on other acts of falsification not covered by the special law. The court below rejected the defense of the accused that said alterations were made in good faith and corresponded to the true facts of the case. when the crimes for which they were convicted occurred. Article 173. 465 makes no provision that it exclusively applies to all falsifications of residence certificates. in the month of September. So ordered. We have made a careful review of the evidence and have come to the conclusion that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed. Ramos for violation of Act No. de Rosales by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) against respondent Atty. as said records showed before said falsification. De Rosales vs Ramos This complaint for disbarment was filed in behalf of complainant Rosalinda Bernardo Vda. unless the latter should specially provide the contrary. 1930. 6. The evidence shows beyond reasonable doubt that prior to the hearing of said administrative case. and the one who stands to benefit therefrom is presumed to be the author thereof. 2711 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917. with costs against the appellants. Soriano was arrested and gave bond on the 13th day of September. 1930. . Ch.The fact that Commonwealth Act No. 10 of the Rev. 1930. Manansala People vs. Soriano was arrested and released on bond on the 6th day of September. There is no issue of law raised in the assignment of errors. in order to make it appear that there had been no violation of the said instructions to the justices of the peace. Mario G. and Commonwealth Act No. 11. Title IV. that the defendant Pedro Montano conspired and cooperated with his codefendant in making said falsifications in order to meet the administrative charges then pending against him. He likewise admitted that he has no participation in anyone of the projects mentioned therein. since under Art. otherwise know as the Notarial Law. in truth and in fact. That despite such knowledge of falsity of the contents of the document he accepted and allowed the same to be used for the pre-qualification bidding before the PEA. He admitted requesting his father to secure the said certification. 7. the said Arturo A. PP vs Monsanto The defendant Wenceslao Cabagsang was the chief of police and the defendant Pedro Montano was the justice of the peace of the municipality of Tanza in the Province of Cavite. 105 Phil 1253. Penal Code. Manansala. falsified official records in their custody as follows: The defendant chief of police fraudulently altered and falsified the municipal police blotter and the book of records of arrests and the return of the warrant of arrest and Soriano's bail bond so as to make them show that the said Arturo A.falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents 1. the defendants. the possessor of the falsified document is presumed to be the author thereof. whereas.

He came to the Philippine Islands upon those representations. which fact respondent readily admitted. was permitted to enter the country. meaningless. It is clear from the pleadings before us that respondent violated the Notarial Law in failing to register in his notarial book the deed of absolute sale he notarized. [7] Failure to perform this duty results in the revocation of his commission as notary public. Desiring to return to China. Mario G. Courts. [6] and specifies what information with regard to the notarized document should be entered therein. or travel in other parts of the world and. In his application for that certificate he stated that he was a Chinese person. The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of a notary public.[10] A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. It is invested with substantive public interest. Notarization is not an empty. he sought to obtain a passport as a citizen of the Philippine Islands under the sovereignty of the United States. 10.using of fictitious name and concealing true identity 1. 718. obtained a section six certificate. No. 388. at the same time. Page No. Rosalinda however denied having signed any deed of sale over her property in favor of Manuel. routinary act. and that his name was To Lee Piu . Ramos on 1 October 1990 and entered in his Notarial Register as Doc. to obtain a passport. He so represented himself to the American consul at Canton and. be permitted to return to the Philippine Islands at will.On 3 September 1991 the Register of Deeds informed Rosalinda that her title to the property was already transferred to Manuel by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale she purportedly executed in favor of Manuel on 5 September 1990. by that deception. administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument. The document was notarized by respondent Atty. He came to the Philippine Islands as a Chinese person traveling for curiosity and pleasure. US v To Lee Piu We are satisfied on the whole case that the conviction must stand. by virtue of the certificate obtained thereby. and. by that representation. Article 178.[8] The importance attached to the act of notarization cannot be overemphasized. Book No. It requires him to keep a notarial register where he shall record all his official acts as notary. such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. From the fact and circumstances in evidence it appears established beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant used the name of another person for the purpose of deceiving Government and. [9] Notarization converts a private document into a public document thus making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. In order to accomplish his purpose it was necessary for him to show to the authorities of the . Series of 1990.

as a matter of fact. The complaint in the case at bar is fatally defective for the want of an allegation that the testimony. The materiality of a matter sworn to must be established by evidence and can not be left to the presumption or inference.. therefore. was not of Philippine origin or birth. alleged to be false. was material to the issues involved in the murder case. under oath. or any fact or circumstance which tends . Article 183. 1909. The term "material matter" means the main fact which was the subject of the inquiry. willfully. and falsely testified and declared.False Testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation 1. 1909. illegally. at about 7 p. Lope Estraña. that the name assumed by the appellant and signed to the application for a passport is not Toribio but Toribio Jalijali. was not Toribio nor Toribio Jalijali. and as accused. in the second place. a mere glance at. thus clearly implying that he belonged to the family or tribe of To. entitled "United States vs.Philippine Islands issuing passport that he was in fact a citizen of the Philippine Islands and as such entitled to a passport. having been duly sworn as a witness in the Court of First Instance of the said province in criminal case No. Our statute (section 3 of Act No. and. maliciously. or by the allegation of facts from which its materiality will appear. but To Lee Piu. it is well settled that an indictment for perjury must show conclusively that the testimony given or assertion made by the defendant on the trial on which he was sworn or it will be fatally defective. in said province. He thereupon took unto himself a Filipino name. in the first place. 1909. when. that the name assumed by the appellant in China and that under which he presented himself to the American consul at Canton. supra) specifically makes materiality an essential element of the crime of perjury and without this the crime can not legally exists.m. But it must be observed."1 for murder. To Lee Piu and Toribio Jalijali. and made his application for a passport attaching to his application the name Toribio Jalijali. the said Dionision Tambolero was not at Japitan on the said 15th day of May. and. It is true that the name Toribio when pronounced by a Chinaman may sound like To Lee Piu. the two names serves to demonstrate beyond question their complete unlikeness. Gil Gamao et al. As to the difference between the two names. In the absence of a statute to the contrary. 1697. one not his own. that on the 15th day of May. or a single pronunciation of. one Dionisio Tambolero came to his house in Japitan. and that he remained in the house of the said accused (Lope Estraña) until the following day. 1055. well knew. all of which was in violation of the statutes in such case made and provided. or any circumstance which tends to prove that fact. This may be done either by a direct allegation that it was material. within the jurisdiction of the municipality of Escalante. on the said 15th day of May. US vs Estrana Lope Estraña.

with grave misconduct. the petitioners failed to establish the fact that the private respondents made a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood in their counter-affidavits dated 11 June 1998. the private respondents believed in good faith that. Respondent sheriff stood to benefit from having the police report reflect that Ryan Padua was an underage driver. Bona fide belief in the truth of a statement is an adequate defense. showing that Ryan Padua was at the time of the accident not qualified to drive a vehicle. It should also be borne in mind that perjury cannot be willful where the oath is according to belief or conviction as to its truth. based on the aboveexplained events. 3. or which legitimately affects the credit of any witness who testifies This definition of perjury.[14] Thus. Perjury is the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under oath or affirmation administered by authority of law on a material matter. perjury. Monfort vs Salvatierra Private respondents thus argue that they cannot be held liable for perjury since one of the elements of perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code is that the assertion of falsehood must be willful and deliberate. falsification of public document. Paz. 3225. the offense being enlarged and made to extend to other false oaths than those taken in the course of judicial proceedings. The assertion must be deliberate and willful. 2. In this case. as modified by statute. Laguna. under oath or information administered by authority of law. may be more accurately defined to be the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood. San Pedro. A mere assertion of a false objective fact is not sufficient. and that this element is lacking in the case at bar.affidavits dated 11 June 1998 are true and correct. As a father to a minor. The third element of perjury requires that the accused had willfully and deliberately asserted a falsehood. and abuse of position in connection with Civil Case No. as found by Investigating Judge Geraldez. Sheriff IV of Branch 31 of the Regional Trial Court. there is evidence to prove that Ireneo Paz may have . that the terms willful and deliberate imply malice and evil intent in asserting falsehood. their statements in their respective counter. giving false testimony. complainant would also be liable for the negligent acts of his son that cause damage to others. Good faith or lack of malice is a valid defense vis-a-vis the allegation of deliberate assertion of falsehood in perjury cases. Padua charges respondent Ireneo S. Padua vs Paz Complainant Medardo M. in a material matter.to corroborate or strengthen the testimony relative to the subject of the inquiry.In the instant case.

The assertion must be deliberate and willful. (d) the sworn statement containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose. an act constituting grave misconduct. Deliberately implies meditated as distinguished from inadvertent acts. (b) the statement was made before a competent officer. there must be malice on the part of the accused.committed falsification of the Traffic Accident Investigation Report (Exhibit B-1). is not enough. It is equivalent to knowingly. Perjury is the deliberate making of untruthful statements upon any material matter before a competent person authorized to administer an oath in cases in which the law requires such oath. Respondent sheriff cannot merely feign ignorance of this detail which is material to his complaint for damages. Respondent sheriff in his verified complaint for damages stated that Ryan Padua had no drivers license on 12 June 1997. at the time of the accident.[32] Willfully means intentionally.[31] Perjury being a felony by dolo. with the 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. Another charge imputed against respondent sheriff is the act of having committed perjury. its perpetration may affect the earnest concerns of the parties before a tribunal. with evil intent and legal malice.[34] . Respondent sheriff knew that this statement he made under oath was false. The felony is consummated when the false statement is made. authorized to receive and administer oaths. namely: (a) the accused made a statement under oath on a material matter. 4. A mere assertion of a false objective fact.[33] It must appear that the accused knows his statement to be false or as consciously ignorant of its truth.[15] There are four elements that comprise the crime of perjury. Ryan Padua possessed license number NO1-95-179337 This information contained in respondent sheriffs copy of the police report completely contradicts the statement respondent sheriff made in his very own complaint. all the requisite elements of the act of perjury exist. (c) the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood in the statement and. which was the date of the vehicular accident. Based on the evidence. a falsehood. This conclusion is drawn from the fact that in respondent sheriffs own copy of the police report. Villanueva vs Secretary of Justice Perjury is an obstruction of justice.

and it would not appear that the testimony charged was false rather than the testimony contradictory thereof. Bona fide belief in the truth of a statement is an adequate defense. .Perjury cannot be willful where the oath is according to belief or conviction as to its truth. and (2) it must be proven that the defendant did not believe those statements to be true. The two statements will simply neutralize each other.Rationale: Proof that accused has given contradictory testimony under oath at a different time will not be sufficient to establish the falsity of testimony charged as perjury. A false statement of a belief is not perjury. there must be some corroboration of the contradictory testimony.[35] A false statement which is obviously the result of an honest mistake is not perjury. however. There are two essential elements of proof for perjury: (1) the statement made by the defendants must be proven false. Such corroboration. The prosecution must prove which of the two statements is false and must show the statement to be false by other evidence than the contradicting statement. may be furnished by evidence aliunde tending to show perjury independently of the declarations of testimony of the accused. A conviction for perjury cannot be sustained merely upon the contradictory sworn statements of the accused. for this would leave simply one oath of the defendant as against another.