US vs. Pablo 35 Phil.

94 (1916)

FACTS

In compliance to an order from his chief, Andres Pablo, a policeman of the municipality of
Balanga, went to the barrio of Tuyo to raid a jueteng game; but before the said officer arrived there
the players left and ran away. He was able to recover on his arrival a low table, a tambiolo
(receptacle) and 37 bolas (balls). Said officer also saw the men Maximo Malicsi and Antonio Rodrigo
left but only Francisco Dato was arrested. This information was contained in his report to his chief
who immediately filed a complaint in the court of justice of the peace against Rodrigo, Malicsi, and
Dato for illegal gambling in violation of Municipal Ordinance No. 5.

Pablo testified under oath that on a particular date he and a companion raided a jueteng
game, that when they arrived in the place they saw Dato and a low table that made them suspect
that a jueteng game was being held; that they did find a tambiolo and 37 bolas, but that they did not
see Rodrigo and Malicsi on the scene nor did they see them scamper; and that only after the incident
that they learned of Rodrigo and Malicsi as being the ringleaders of the said jueteng game according
to a source. This testimony was acted upon by the court acquitting the defendants Rodrigo and
Malicsi and sentenced only Dato.

The provincial fiscal investigated further on the case and found out that before the case came
to trial in the justice of the peace court, the policeman Pablo had conference with the accused Malicsi
and Rodrigo and agreed that he would exclude the involvement of the two in the case in exchange of
a bribe of fifteen pesos.

Because of this development, the provincial fiscal filed a complaint in the Court of First
Instance charging Andres Pablo with the crime of perjury in violation of section 3 of Act No. 1697
declaring that he willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously affirmed and swore under oath in legal form
before the justice of the peace during the hearing of the case of Rodrigo and Malicsi for violation of
Municipal Ordinance No. 5 of the municipality of Balanga when he excluded the two accused from
involvement in the incident despite being utterly false and material to the decision of the case.

When the court found him guilty and sentenced to suffer two years imprisonment, a fine of
P100, and disqualification to hold public office as well as from testifying in Philippine courts, he
appealed for such judgment.

ISSUE
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of the crime of perjury or of false testimony under Art.
318 to 324 of the Revised Penal Code.

HELD
Yes. The respondent is guilty of such crime under Article 318 to 324 of the Penal Code since
such Articles are not expressly repealed by the Administrative code when it repealed Act No. 1697.

Law 11, Title 2, Book 3, of the Novisima Recopilacion states that, “All laws… not expressly
repealed by other subsequent laws, must be literally obeyed and the excuse that they are not in use
cannot avail.”

Said articles of the Penal Code are in force and are properly applicable to crimes of false
testimony. In the present case, the proven evidence showed that Andres Pablo falsely testified before
the court by perverting the truth in favor of the alleged gamblers, Maximo Malicsi and Antonio
Rodrigo and in receiving bribe from the said accused which aggravated the crime – proof showed he
received P15 in order that he exclude the two ringleaders in his sworn testimony. The court held that,
“ … in the commission of the crime of false testimony, there concurred the aggravating circumstance
of price or reward, No. 3 of article 10 of the Code, with no mitigating circumstance to offset the
effects of the said aggravating one; wherefore the defendant has incurred the maximum period of
the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum degree to prision correccional in its medium degree, and
a fine.”