Case Digest (G.R. No. 2709)
Facts:
The United States v. Isidoro Aragon, G.R. No. 2709. December 28, 1905, the Supreme Court, Johnson, J., writing for the Court.This is an appeal from a conviction for giving false testimony. The government (plaintiff) charged Isidoro Aragon (defendant/appellant) under the Penal Code for allegedly giving materially false answers while testifying as a witness in a justice of the peace civil action filed by Edwin H. Warner against Claro Magcauas to recover unpaid rent for the years 1899–1903. The complaint set out several questions posed to Aragon on March 4, 1904, and his answers (many of which were to the effect that he did not remember or had no recollection), and alleged that those answers were false because Aragon in fact knew about prior suits, orders from the Court of First Instance, and the identities and roles of various persons connected with the Pasay estate.
At the trial court (the justice of the peace proceedings were the civil forum where the testimony was given), Aragon was subsequently prosecuted before an inferior criminal tribunal on the accusation of false testimony. At the close of the criminal trial the inferior court found Aragon guilty and sentenced him to three months arresto mayor with accessory penalties under article 61 of the Penal Code, a fine of 1,500 pesetas (with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency), and costs.
Aragon appealed the criminal conviction to the Supreme Court. On appeal the parties and the Court focused on whether the testimony given in the civil cause was (1) relevant to the issues in that cause, (2) false, and (3) knowingly and maliciously false so as to satisfy the statutory elements of the crime of false testimony contained in Chapter VI, Title IV of the Penal Code (specifically Article 321). The Suprem...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the elements of the crime of false testimony under Article 321 of the Penal Code as to Isidoro Aragon?
- May answers of "I do not remember" or similar claims of lack of recollection, when the prosecution proves certain prior facts, be treated as false testimony sufficient to sustain a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)