People. vs Faustino Rivera 1. The facts (aka what Rivera did) fall under Art.
acts (aka what Rivera did) fall under Art. 326 of the Codigo Penal1
December 22, 1933 | Butte, J. | Incriminating innocent person – Art. 363
PETITIONER: People of the Philippines
RESPONDENTS: Faustino Rivera
SUMMARY: Rivera filed two complaints accusing Vito and Moreno of theft.
Both were dismissed for lack of evidence. Vito and Moreno in turn filed
complaints in violation of Art. 363 RPC. The lower court dismissed such. The
SC held that what Rivera did was punishable by Art. 326 CP which was already
superseded by the RPC. You cannot construe Art. 363 RPC to cover the same
offense under Art. 326 CP because the two are significantly different.
FACTS:
1. (1st information): June 23, 1932 – Faustino Rivera voluntarily, illegally, and
maliciously executed a complaint (in writing and under oath) that tended to
incriminate Domingo Vito of the crime of theft. This complaint was
dismissed for lack of evidence.
2. (amended information): June 23, 1932 – Faustino Rivera again violated
Art. 363 (Inculpation of an innocent) when he executed a complaint which
tended to indict Felisa Moreno for theft which was also dismissed for lack
of evidence.
3. Rivera claimed that he did file a complaint because on June 22,
Moreno/Vito (neighbors) allegedly stole an American suit, an eye glass, and
a hat (amounting to P39).
4. After the judge dismissed both complaints for lack of merit, the two sued
Rivera for violating Art. 363. Rivera filed a single demurrer against both
informations which the court sustained.
5. Appellant (People) claim that the court erred in holding that the facts do not
fall under Art. 363. (in other words, gusto ni People na pasok sa Art.363
yung facts)
ISSUE:
1. W/N Rivera is guilty under Art. 363 of the RPC? NO.
RULING:
Judgment AFFIRMED. (panalo si Rivera)
RATIO:
which was already superseded by the RPC. Under the RPC, there is no
provision which covers the contents of Art. 326 of the CP. SolGen argues
that Art. 363 RPC2 should be construed to embrance the same crime
punished by Art. 326 CP.
2. The SolGen further argues that Art. 363 RPC is a combination of Art. 326
CP (false accusation/complaint) and Art. 452 CP (calumny)3
3. The SC held that there is a clear distinction between Art. 363 RPC
(gravamen of offense is performing an act which tends directly to an
imputation) and Art. 326 CP (gravamen is the imputation itself when made
before an administrative/judicial officer). Statcon – since it is clear that
there is a difference in text, it is improper to resort to use the caption or title
to make things more obscure or confusing.
4. Note that under Art. 326 CP, the provision contains that the accuser can
only be prosecuted by the order of the court, when the court is convinced
that there is a false accusation (based on the result of the principal trial).
Art. 363 RPC contains no such safeguard.
5. As it is obvious that Art. 326 CP and Art. 363 RPC are different, they
cannot be construed to punish the same offense. Although the facts may
fall under Art. 326 CP, this is already superseded by the RPC wherein no
provision contains the same.
1Art. 326 of the Codigo Penal: The crime of accusation or false accusation is
committed by falsely accusing a person of facts that, if certain, would constitute an
offense of those that give rise to the ex officio procedure, if this accusation is made
before an administrative or judicial officer that by reason of his position it should
proceed with its investigation or punishment.
There will be no proceeding, however, against the accuser or accuser, except in the
case of a final judgment or a decision, which is also final, of the dismissal of the
court that has known of the imputed crime.
This will proceed ex officio against the denouncer or accuser, provided that the main
cause is enough merits to open the new process.
2
Art. 363 of the RPC: Incriminating innocent person – Any person who, by any act
not constituting perjury shall directly incriminate or impute to an innocent person the
commission of a crime, shall be punished by arresto mayor.
3
Art. 452 of CP: Calumny is the false imputation of a crime upon which a
prosecution might be instituted by the government of its own motion.
Concurring Opinion – Diaz

- Tama na hindi Art. 363 pero dapat LIBEL under Art. 353 since all elements
were present:

o Malicious imputation of a crime – THEFT

o Committed by means of writing – WRITTEN COMPLAINT

o With publicity – UNDER OATH AND SUBMITTED TO

AUTHORITIES

- Pwede ring FALSE TESTIMONY under Art. 183 if proven that Rivera
acted knowingly of the falsity.

Dissenting Opinion – Vickers

- I cannot believe na the legislature would allow the following to happen:

o Na if the accusation be oral or in writing – it would either be

slander or libel

o Pero if the accusation no matter how false be done under oath,

there is no criminal liability (as what happened in this case)