MEMORANDUM

ACCUSED BC, by counsel, respectfully submits this Memorandum to show that he is not guilty of perjury
as alleged in the Information.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a case for perjury against BC.

The basis for this

charge is the affidavit-complaint he executed on May 7, 2011, charging Police Officer XY with
grave misconduct for the incident that happened at the La Trinidad Police Station on May 4,
2011. BC stated in his affidavit-complaint that on that day XY threatened him with bodily harm.
The prosecution, however, was able to show that XY was in the United States on May 4, 2011.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

At about 6:30 o’clock in the evening of May 4, 2011, BC was

Ibid. at pp. MN. by three men whose names he came to know later as KL. But while he was at
the door of the hospital. Benguet. 2009. but the police officer on duty advised him to go to the
nearby Benguet General Hospital first for treatment of his injuries. BC went to the police station
at Km. After he was treated. 7-8. MN.2 He was treated at the hospital by Dr.again . He was
treated . 5. 1 Accompanied by his wife and a barangay tanod.2 mauled at Km. a man. 1 2 Tsn. 6.
18.. at p. Feb. 4. at pp. 5 Exh. arrived and threatened BC with bodily harm if he would not
withdraw his complaint. La Trinidad. 4 Tsn. to report the incident. and OP. 18. While he and
several persons were at the police station. From the hospital.by Dr. FG who issued another
Medico-Legal Certificate5.4 So back to the hospital he went. he was again mauled by KL. BC
prepared to go to the police station. he proceeded to the police station to lodge a complaint
against those who had mauled him. . 3-5. 2009. “1”. and OP. 3 Exh. La Trinidad. FG who issued
him a Medico-Legal Certificate3. “2”. Feb. who introduced himself as Police Officer XY and
cousin of KL.

and therefore he could not have been at the La Trinidad Police Station on that day. On May 7.
was able to prove that on May 4. . RC and JC.3 BC’s testimony about the incident that happened
at the police station was substantially corroborated by two eye-witnesses. however. the one who
threatened BC at the police station was not XY. XY was in the United States. BC executed an
affidavit-complaint charging XY with grave misconduct. As it turned out. “4” and “5”. Whether
or not BC made a deliberate statement of b) Whether or not the false statement was made before
an officer authorized to administer oaths. 2011. ARGUMENTS 6 Exhs. who separately executed
their respective affidavits6. The prosecution. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES The issues in this
case are: a) falsehood. 2011.

1998. (2) that the statement was made before a competent officer. et al. and (4) that the sworn
statement containing the falsity is required by law or made for legal purpose.’ ‘Deliberately’
implies ‘meditated’ as distinguished from `inadvertent acts. with evil intent and legal malice. v. .
In Padua v. It is equivalent to `knowingly. in Monfort III. has explained the law on perjury in this
wise: “Perjury being a felony by dolo. March 5.7 Perjury is a felony by dolo because it is
required that the statement made by the accused is a willful and deliberate assertion of a
falsehood..R. Willfully means intentionally.4 a) Accused BC did not make a deliberate statement
of falsehood. The Revised Penal Code. A. Perjury is defined and penalized under Article 183 of
the Revised Penal Code. with 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. April 30. G. No. 272.
authorized to receive and administer oath. 2007 .’ It must appear that the 7 See also: Reyes. Luis
B. at p. Paz. Salvatierra. the Supreme Court restated the four elements of perjury. namely: (1)
that the accused made a statement under oath upon a material matter. et al. there must be malice
on the part of the accused. Book Two. (3) that the accused made a willful and deliberate
assertion of a falsehood in the statement. The Supreme Court. No. 168301. 2003. P-00-1445.M.
c..

he thought his statement was true. They. Having been mauled twice in close succession. in a
legitimate act to seek relief for the wrong done to him. at the time BC made his Affidavit-
Complaint. to borrow the words of the Supreme Court. believed in good faith that the one who
arrived at the police station was Police Officer XY because that was how that person announced
himself to be. BC made an affidavit-complaint. he acted in good faith. He was. The fact is. “B”
[also Exh. consciously ignorant of its truth. RC and JC who were present during the incident at
the La Trinidad police station were of the same perception. In making the statement. he did not
act with evil intent. the prosecution has failed to show that he was aware of the falsity of his
statement. The way that person acted at that time led everyone to believe that he was Police
Officer XY.5 accused knows his statement to be false or is consciously ignorant of its truth. In
fact. That BC presented his affidavit-complaint to the Philippine National Police Provincial
Internal Affairs Service (PIAS-CAR) demonstrates 8 Exh. . charging the person whom he
honestly thought at that time to be Police Officer XY with an administrative offense.” Assuming
that BC’s affidavit-complaint 8 contains false statement. “6”]. On the contrary. too.

It means that he had no other purpose but to legitimately seek redress for his grievance.. . it was
held that “a mere assertion of a false objective fact. but such assertion was not deliberate and
willful. b) The prosecution failed to prove that the statement was made before a competent
officer authorized to administer oath. 59. 74 Phil. 18. a falsehood. is not enough. it is respectfully
submitted. 2011. Nov. there might have been an assertion of a false objective fact regarding the
presence of XY at the La Trinidad police station on May 4. No.” Here. The assertion must be
deliberate and willful. good faith is a defense in perjury. The all-familiar rule in this jurisdiction
is that in criminal prosecutions the plaintiff has the burden of proof.R. Secretary of Justice. This
burden of proof imposes upon the prosecution the duty to prove all the elements of the offense
beyond reasonable doubt. 2005. 162187. which is the affidavit-complaint of BC. As held in
People v. In Villanueva v. et al. All the prosecution did in this case was to offer in evidence Exh.
is not enough. Abaya. Hon.6 his good faith. G. 9 Formal Offer of Exhibits for the Prosecution.
“to form part of the testimony of Police Officer XY”9 That. “B”.

there is likewise no evidence. because none was presented by the prosecution. are also prayed
for.7 Since one element of the offense is that “the statement was made before a competent officer
authorized to receive and administer oath. it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered
acquitting BC of perjury. too. This. The Besides. this 27th day of November. Other reliefs just
and equitable BAGUO CITY. 2011. the words “notary public” cannot support the presumption
that the person whose name appears thereon is authorized to receive and administer oath. The
words “notary public” below the name QRS is hopelessly insufficient to prove this element.
Since this is a criminal prosecution. prosecution cannot rely on presumptions or conjectures.
PHILIPPINES. RELIEF WHEREFORE. cannot be presumed.” the prosecution should have
presented evidence to show that the person before whom the statement was made was a duly
commissioned notary public in Benguet Province on the date appearing on the affidavit-
complaint. . as to whose signature appears above the name QRS.

8 Signed (Counsel for the Accused) Address Copy furnished (by personal service): Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor La Trinidad. Benguet .