Case Summary (G.R. No. L-48088)
Criminal Charges and Information
The criminal information alleges that on July 2, 1977, Flordelis willfully and unlawfully provided a false statement in a verified answer to a complaint filed in the City Court of Tagbilaran. It asserts he denied owing Attorney Sulpicio Tinampay any fees for his legal services while knowing that such a statement was false, given that he had indeed engaged Tinampay’s services in earlier legal matters. This charge is rooted in Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code.
Denial of Motion to Quash
On February 13, 1978, Flordelis filed a motion to quash the information based on two grounds: (1) the facts charged do not constitute an offense, and (2) the information presents averments that constitute a valid defense. However, the respondent judge denied this motion, stating that resolving the issues raised required allowing the prosecution to present evidence first, emphasizing the need for the court to scrutinize evidence prior to dismissing the case.
Legal Deficiencies in Charge of Perjury
A critical element missing from the charges against Flordelis is the requirement that the sworn statement, which is alleged to be false, must be required by law. Under the Revised Penal Code, an answer to a complaint in civil proceedings does not need to be under oath, which negates the perjury claim. Additionally, any statements made in the context of legal pleadings related to ongoing court cases are absolutely privileged and cannot serve as grounds for criminal prosecution.
Implications of the Court's Reasoning
The court's assertion regarding the necessity for the prosecution to present evidence overlooks the fact that Flordelis had already included the relevant documents in his motion to quash. Since the authenticity of these documents was not contested, the further need for evidence presentation was unnecessary. The legal implications of the statements made in the verified answer were clear, thereby rendering any trial on the perjury charge unwarranted.
Certiorari and Prohibition
The court reiterated its stance from the precedent set in People vs. Ramos, which establishes that a denial of a motion to quash can be subject to certiorari and prohibitio
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-48088)
Case Overview
- Parties Involved:
- Petitioner: Gotardo Flordelis
- Respondents: Honorable Edgar R. Himalaloan (Acting City Judge, City Court of Tagbilaran, Branch II), The People of the Philippines, Sulpicio Tinampay
- Case Reference: G.R. No. L-48088
- Decision Date: July 31, 1978
- Court: Second Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines
- Nature of the Case: Petition for certiorari and prohibition against an order denying the motion to quash a criminal information for perjury.
Background of the Case
- Gotardo Flordelis was accused of committing perjury in a verified answer to a complaint filed by Atty. Sulpicio Tinampay.
- The complaint alleged that Flordelis falsely stated he did not owe anything to Tinampay, despite having engaged his legal services in two criminal cases.
- The information was filed with the City Court of Tagbilaran City on January 13, 1978.
Legal Charges
- Specific Charge: Perjury, as defined under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code.
- Allegations:
- Flordelis knowingly made a false statement in a verified answer filed in court.
- The false statement was intended to evade payment of a debt and legal fees, causing damage and embarrassment to Tinampay.
Motion to Quash
- On February 13, 1978,