G.R. No. 101335 - People vs. Robles

The petitioner, Gotardo Flordelis, was charged with perjury based on allegations that he filed a falsified verified answer to a complaint.
The charge arose from a criminal information filed on January 13, 1978, by the 3rd Assistant City Fiscal in the City Court of Tagbilaran City.
It was alleged that on or about July 2, 1977, the petitioner, driven by a desire to avoid payment of a just debt and attorneys’ fees, executed a false verified answer to the complaint of Atty. Sulpicio Tinampay.
The information detailed that the petitioner’s verified answer was filed in connection with civil actions involving accusations in other criminal cases, including one for usurpation of official function and another for perjury, thereby allegedly causing damage and prejudice to Atty. Tinampay.

On February 13, 1978, Gotardo Flordelis filed a motion to quash the criminal information on two grounds:

That the facts alleged in the information did not amount to the crime of perjury because the statement in question was not legally required to be under oath.
That the averments within the information constituted a defense, rendering the charge defective.

The respondent judge, acting as the City Judge of Tagbilaran’s Branch II, denied the motion to quash.

The rationale given was that the issues raised were of a evidentiary nature and should be addressed during the trial, once the prosecution had the opportunity to present the questioned documents and evidence.
The judge contended that quashing the information at that stage would impede the court’s ability to scrutinize evidence from the prosecution.

The pivotal fact in the information was the reference to the petitioner’s “verified answer” in a civil complaint; however, an answer in a civil action does not have a legal requirement of being sworn under oath.
The record demonstrated that:

The petitioner’s verified answer was properly attached to his motion to quash, and its authenticity was not challenged by the prosecution.
The allegations overlooked the legal premise that only statements required by law to be sworn can form the basis of a perjury charge.

The case also referenced legal authorities including the Revised Penal Code and the People vs. Aquino decision regarding the privileged nature of pleadings in a civil action.

Whether the alleged false statement made by the petitioner in his verified answer qualifies as perjury when such an answer, being part of an ordinary civil action, is not legally required to be sworn under oath.
Whether the motion to quash the criminal information should be denied at the pre-trial stage on the grounds that it pertains to evidentiary issues best resolved during the trial.
Whether the procedural posture justified the petition for certiorari and prohibition, given that allowing a trial on a patently defective information would subject the accused to unjust prosecution.