(9)

US v. Pablo (1916) | G.R. No. L-11676 | October 17, 1916 | Ponente : Torres, J.


Plain&ff and Appellee: United States


Defendant and Appellant: Andres Pablo

Ponente: Jus&ce Torres

Date: October 17, 1916

Topic: Power to define and punish crimes



Important provisions in the case:
- Act No. 1697 – repealed ar&cles of the Penal code rela&ng to false tes&mony, perjury (RPC Art. 318-324)
- Act. No. 2657, final ar&cle and sec&on, paragraph 2 – repealed Act No. 1697


FACTS:

- October 21, 1915, noon – By order of his chief (Chief Jose D. Reyes), Policeman Andres Pablo of the Balanga
municipality, accompanied by Tomas de Leon, raided a jueteng game in Barrio Tuyo. Perhaps alerted by a spy,
players ran away and vacated the lot.
- Upon arrival, Policeman Pablo found Francisco Dato at a short distance away from the lot, situated in a low table.
They also found in the premises a tambiolo (receptacle) and 37 bolas (balls). He also saw Maximo Malicsi and
Antonio Rodrigo running away from the place, but he did not arrest them for lack of material proof.
- ADer the raid, Policeman Pablo’s memorandum read: “In the barrio of Tuyo I raided a jueteng na bilat game,
seize a tambiolo and bolas, saw the cabecillas Maximo Malicsi and Antonio Rodrigo and the gambler Francisco
Dato. I saw the two cabecillas escape.”
- October 22, 1915 – Chief Jose Reyes filed complaint charging Rodrigo, Malicsi and Dato for gambling jueteng
which is in viola&on of municipal ordinance #5. Accused were arrested but allowed to bail. Francisco Dato
pleaded guilty, Malicsi and Rodrigo pleaded not guilty.
- November 6, 1915 - On the day of trial, Pablo, under oath, stated that he did not see Rodrigo and Malicsi on
the lot, nor did he see them run away. He also stated he only knew they were ringleaders aDer the raid by
informa\on of an unknown person. By Pablo’s tes\mony, Malicsi and Rodrigo were acqui_ed (Criminal case
no. 787, The United States vs. Antonio Rodrigo and Maximo Malicsi).
- Before trial, Pablo met with Malicsi and Rodrigo at Valen\n Sionson’s house. He was instructed not to tes\fy
against the two, and received 5 PHP from Gregorio Ganzon.
- December 1, 1915 – Provincial fiscal, a^er preliminary inves&ga&on, filed a case at CFI of Bataan, charging Pablo
of perjury under sec&on 3, Act No. 1697.
- December 28, 1915 – Pablo was sentenced to a penalty of 2 years imprisonment, and a 100 PHP fine. In case of
insolvency, submit to corresponding subsidiary imprisonment and pay the costs. He is also disqualified from
holding any public office and from tes&fying in Philippine courts un&l this disqualifica&on is removed.
- CASE AT HAND IS AN APPEAL OF PABLO FROM THIS DECEMBER 28, 1915 BATAAN CFI RULING.

- Witness Francisco Dato stated that Malicsi and Rodrigo ordered him to call Pablo before the trial, in the house of
Valen&n Sionson, and there they made the agreement. Malicsi and Rodrigo promised Dato that they would
support his family while he is in prison.
- Malicsi stated that Andres Pablo could have arrested him if he wished on the day of the raid, and that they did
meet him at Sionson’s house. They agreed to give Pablo 20 PHP, but Pablo only received 15 PHP from Gregorio
Ganzon.
- Pablo tes&fied again that he did not see Malicsi and Rodrigo


ISSUE + RATIO:


Whether Andres Pablo is guilty of perjury/false tes\mony under RPC Ar\cles 318-324? YES.
- Act No. 1697 which repealed RPC ar&cles 318-324 (as interpreted and used in the decisions of the court) DID
NOT expressly repeal the RPC ar&cles. Act No. 2657 also DID NOT expressly repeal the RPC ar&cles, as clearly as it
repealed Act No. 1697, so RPC Ar&cles 318-324 are s&ll ENFORCEABLE.
- Other basis: Law 7 et seq, of Title 2, third Par&da & Law 11, Title 2, Book 3 of the Novisima Recopilacion.
- “Right of prosecu&on and punishment for a crime is one of the ajributes that by a natural law belongs to the
sovereign power ins&nc&vely charged by the common will of the members of society…” (in rela&on to the outline
topic)

The sentence being appealed is reversed. Andres Pablo is hereby guilty of false tes\mony, concurred the
aggrava\ng circumstance of prize or reward, No. 3 of ar\cle 10 of the code,with no mi\ga\ng circumstance to
offset the said aggrava\ng one, is sentenced to a penalty of two years four months and one day of prision
correc\onal, to pay a fine of 1000 pesetas, and, in case of insolvency, supper the corresponding subsidiary
imprisonment, which shall not exceed 1/3 of the principal penalty. He also needs to pay the costs of both instances.