G.R. No. 11196 - People vs. Yumul

The accused were inspectors of the election board of the first precinct of the municipality of Calibo, Province of Capiz, in the election for Delegates held on July 30, 1907.
They were charged in case No. 618 before the Court of First Instance of Capiz for allegedly violating the Election Law.
The specific allegation centered on the refusal to inscribe the name of Esteban Leocario without just cause.

A point in controversy in the proceedings was whether Esteban Leocario appeared before the inspectors to have his name registered in the electoral list.
The defendants testified in their own behalf, swearing that Esteban Leocario did not appear before them on the day in question.
The prosecution, however, considered this negative testimony to be false, thereby instituting proceedings against the defendants for perjury.

In case No. 4817 of the Court of First Instance, similar charges were brought, and the accused were similarly charged with refusing to register Esteban Leocario’s name.
In that case, the evidence (including substantially the same witnesses) was found to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants had given false testimony.
The lower court had affirmed the conviction, holding that the testimony—claiming that Esteban Leocario did not appear—was knowingly untrue.

The accused perjury issue raised a critical legal question regarding the applicable statute: whether the Criminal Code provisions on perjury (articles 318 and following) or section 3 of Act No. 1697 should apply.
Section 3 of Act No. 1697 provides that any person taking an oath before a competent tribunal or officer, who willfully states a material matter which he does not believe to be true, is guilty of perjury and subject to prescribed penalties.
The legislative history and the title of Act No. 1697 indicate that it was meant to empower official investigations and to punish perjury committed during such processes.

Whether the crime of perjury committed by the defendants falls under the provisions of the Penal Code (articles 318 and following) or under section 3 of Act No. 1697.
Whether the enactment of Act No. 1697, in its language and scope, impliedly repealed the relevant Penal Code provisions on perjury.

Whether the oath taken by the accused, in the context of their official duties as election inspectors, imposed an absolute duty to testify truthfully.
Whether the false testimony (stating that Esteban Leocario did not appear) constitutes perjury under the statutory framework provided by Act No. 1697.

Whether the prosecution for perjury could be commenced while the prior proceeding (related to the false testimony) was still pending or before its termination.
The legal effect of administering penalties once it was established that the defendants testified falsely under oath.