Case Digest (G.R. No. 5597)
Facts:
The United States, Plaintiff and Appellee, vs. Esteban Y. Vazquez, Defendant and Appellant, G.R. No. 9096, December 29, 1913, the Supreme Court, Carson, J., writing for the Court (Arellano, C.J., Torres, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concurring).The appellant Esteban Y. Vazquez was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Iloilo for perjury and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and a P1,000 fine (with subsidiary imprisonment for insolvency). The information charged that on or about November 15, 1912, during the trial of civil Case No. 1692 (Juan Abraham, Jr. v. Esteban Y. Vazquez) before that court, Vazquez wilfully testified that Juan Abraham, Jr. had signed and delivered a receipt for P8,700 evidencing payment, when that declaration was false and material to the civil case. The criminal prosecution proceeded on the theory that the receipt offered in the civil proceeding was a forgery and that Vazquez’s sworn testimony that he had paid P8,700 was false.
In the underlying civil action Abraham claimed a balance of slightly over P9,000. At trial Vazquez produced a receipt dated July 9, 1911, signed “J. Abraham, Jr.,” purporting to acknowledge receipt of P8,700; he swore under oath in the civil trial that he had paid that sum. Abraham denied signing or delivering the receipt or receiving the payment. The prosecution introduced testimony and documentary evidence to show the receipt had been manufactured by erasing an invoice and inserting the receipt text, and that the signature on the receipt was a facsimile of Abraham’s genuine signature as it appeared on a letter‑press copy of an invoice.
Photographic copies of the original invoice and the letter‑press copy (exhibits from the civil case) were filed in the criminal record; on superimposition the letter‑press copy’s signature and faint outlines of words and figures were found to correspond exactly to markings faintly visible on the alleged receipt. The trial judge found signs of maceration and a dulled signature consistent with passage through a copy‑press book, and concluded the receipt was a forgery and the payment had not been made. Vazquez’s counsel argued the prosecution failed to prove essential elements of perjury under Act No. 1697, Sec. 3, including that the accused had been duly sworn before a competent tribunal and that the false testimony was material, and also contended the transcript of the civil trial was insufficiently authenticated. The clerk testified as to the stenographer’s signature on the civil transcript;...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the transcript of the civil trial and the oral testimony at the criminal trial sufficient to prove that Vazquez was duly sworn before a competent tribunal as required by Act No. 1697, Sec. 3?
- Did the evidence establish that the receipt was a forgery and that Vazquez’s sworn testimony as to payment was false and material, thereby sustaining a conviction for perj...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)