G.R. No. L-46753-54 - Solis vs. Court of Appeals

On August 21, 1907, following a preliminary investigation, the provincial fiscal of Albay filed a written complaint charging Felisa Brondial and Juliana Selizar with the crime of perjury.
The complaint related to a civil trial (Civil Case No. 090) in which Agustin Zamora was the plaintiff and Felisa Brondial the defendant. The action centered on either the return of a watch or the payment of its value, amounting to P285.

During the trial held on or about February 25, 1907, Felisa Brondial testified under oath that she was 20 years old, contrary to the known fact that she was actually 25.
Juliana Selizar, her mother, proclaimed that Felisa was only 18 years of age despite both having knowledge of her actual age.
The false declarations, made knowingly, willfully, and maliciously, were purportedly intended to evade the civil liability arising from the disputed claim.

Acting in agreement with the counsel for the accused, the provincial fiscal initially requested a temporary dismissal of the charge against Juliana Selizar, reserving the right to file a separate complaint against her at a later stage.
The trial judge granted the request, and accordingly, an amended complaint was filed against Felisa Brondial on September 11, 1907.
On the same day, counsel for Felisa Brondial interposed a demurrer, arguing that the facts presented did not constitute perjury in a civil cause, citing the view that a party to a civil suit cannot commit perjury as they act in their dual capacity as both litigant and witness.
The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the case against Felisa Brondial.
Subsequently, the provincial fiscal appealed the dismissal, prompting the Supreme Court’s intervention.

The case referenced a similar matter in Case No. 2461 from the Court of First Instance of Ambos Camarines involving false testimony by a litigant.
Commentary by the distinguished legal scholar Viada, who opined that a party to a civil suit may indeed commit perjury when giving false testimony, was also cited.
Provisions from General Orders No. 58 and the Code of Civil Procedure were invoked to emphasize that all persons, including parties to an action, may testify and are thereby subject to perjury statutes.

Whether a litigant who gives false testimony in his or her own civil action can be charged with perjury under Article 321 of the Penal Code.
The issue hinges on whether the perjury statute applies exclusively to independent witnesses or also to parties who testify in their own cases.

Whether the false testimony by Felisa Brondial, given her dual role as both party and witness, falls within the ambit of the perjury provisions.
The defense contends that since the false testimony occurred within a civil suit, the protection extended to parties precludes criminal liability for perjury.

Whether the mere act of instituting criminal proceedings implies a prejudice of liability for the accused.
The issue involves the requirement for a final judgment to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the weight of evidence, irrespective of the preliminary filing of charges.