Case Digest (G.R. No. 11676)
Facts:
The United States v. Andres Pablo, G.R. No. 11676, October 17, 1916, the Supreme Court, Torres, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee was The United States; the defendant-appellant was Andres Pablo, a municipal policeman of Balanga, Bataan.On October 21, 1915, Policeman Andres Pablo, by order of his chief, proceeded to the barrio of Tuyo to raid an alleged jueteng game. He found a low table, a tambiolo (receptacle) and 37 bolas, and saw Francisco Dato at the lot; he did not initially see the accused Maximo Malicsi and Antonio Rodrigo on the lot and therefore arrested only Dato. Pablo prepared a memorandum stating that he had raided a jueteng game, seized the tambiolo and bolas, and had seen the cabecillas Malicsi and Rodrigo escape.
On October 22, 1915, Chief of Police Jose D. Reyes filed a complaint in the justice of the peace court charging Rodrigo, Malicsi and Dato with violating municipal ordinance No. 5 (gambling). At the justice of the peace hearing Dato pleaded guilty; Malicsi and Rodrigo pleaded not guilty. Andres Pablo testified under oath that he had not seen Malicsi and Rodrigo at the place and had not seen them run, and the justice of the peace acquitted Malicsi and Rodrigo and sentenced only Dato.
Prior to that trial, Pablo had met with Malicsi and Rodrigo at the house of Valentin Sioson and was instructed not to testify against them; testimony at the subsequent prosecution indicated that Pablo received money (variously described as P 5 or P 15) through Gregorio Ganzon to exclude them from his testimony. Based on a preliminary investigation, the provincial fiscal filed on December 1, 1915 an information in the Court of First Instance of Bataan charging Andres Pablo with perjury under Act No. 1697 (perjury statute). At trial the prosecution produced Dato, Malicsi, Ganzon and other witnesses who testified to the agreement and payment; Pablo repeated under oath that he had not seen Malicsi and Rodrigo.
On December 28, 1915 the trial court convicted Pablo and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment, a fine of P100, costs, and disqualification; Pablo appealed to the Supreme Court. At the Supreme Court the central legal contest involved not only the factual determination of false testimony but also whether there remained any penal sanction f...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did Andres Pablo willfully and falsely testify under oath such that he committed perjury/false testimony?
- Does a criminal sanction for perjury or false testimony continue to exist after the repeal of Act No. 1697 by the Administrative Code (Act No. 2657), or has the repeal created a vacuum leaving the crime unpunished?
- If the crime is punishable, does the proven acceptance of a price or reward constitute an aggravating ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)