G.R. No. 9869 - U.S. vs. Canet

Case Summary (G.R. No. 9869)

Filing of the Information and Demurrer; Amended Information

On January 9, 1914, the provincial fiscal of Iloilo Province filed the original information charging perjury. The defendant demurred, and the lower court sustained the demurrer, ordering the information amended. An amended information was filed on March 2, 1914. It charged that, in the municipality of Iloilo, Iloilo Province, on or about September 29, 1913, Federico Canet had presented to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo a motion for annulment of a judgment, together with an affidavit signed by himself. The amended information alleged that the affidavit was deliberately presented for the purpose of securing a decision in his favor and preventing execution and sale of his property in the civil case, and that it contained false statements on material matters.

The Allegedly False Affidavit’s Contents and Purpose

The affidavit, as set out in the amended information, described a civil suit docketed as No. 1842, titled “Abraham Weill, as attorney for Levy Hermanos, plaintiff, vs. Federico Canet, defendant,” and the circumstances allegedly leading to a compromise and the dismissal of claims and attachment. It asserted, among other matters, that Canet and Weill had entered into a compromise, that attachment had been raised after notification, that Canet had delivered sugar proceeds, and that Weill had promised not to take further steps. The affidavit further alleged that Canet later discovered that the suit had not been dismissed as agreed and that judgment had been obtained through fraud and without Canet’s knowledge. It relied on assertions designed to support Canet’s motion to annul the civil judgment for reasons of fraud and invalidity, characterizing the judgment as allegedly null and void.

Defendant’s Second Demurrer and Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction

After the amended information was filed, the defendant filed another demurrer on two grounds: (1) that the facts did not constitute the crime charged, and (2) that the crime had not been committed within the court’s jurisdiction. The lower court overruled the first ground but sustained the second, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction. On March 24, 1914, the trial court dismissed the case. The United States appealed the dismissal.

Issue on Appeal: Whether Jurisdiction Existed in Iloilo

On appeal, the central question was jurisdiction. The lower court reasoned that the offense was completed in Manila, because the affidavit—the document upon which perjury was said to rest—was subscribed and sworn before a notary in Manila. The appellate decision focused on whether that fact controlled jurisdiction, or whether perjury was deemed committed where the false affidavit was used in a pending proceeding.

Appellate Court’s Resolution of the Jurisdictional Question

The Court held that it was immaterial where the affidavit was subscribed and sworn, so long as the amended information alleged that the defendant deliberately, maliciously and criminally swore to and presented in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo a false affidavit that he knew to be false and that was intended to mislead the court in a judicial proceeding pending in Iloilo. The Court thus characterized the “principal act” of the offense not as the physical making of the affidavit in Manila, but as the intentional giving of false evidence in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, through submission of the affidavit as evidence to the court.

Statutory Definition of Perjury Under Section 3 of Act No. 1697

To ground its conclusion, the Court quoted Section 3 of Act No. 1697, defining perjury as willfully and contrary to oath stating or subscribing a material matter not believed to be true, after taking an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in cases where the law authorizes the administration of the oath. The provision penalized the act and further imposed specified incapacity consequences. The Court emphasized that the perjury statute covered willful and corrupt assertion of falsehood under oath or affirmation, intended to influence the course of law.

Common-Law and Jurisprudential Support for Treating Affidavit Submission as Perjury

The Court relied on United States vs. Estrana (16 Phil. Rep., 520) to show that Philippine perjury law was practically the same as that of many States in the Union and, by reference to common law, perjury involved willful and corrupt taking of a false oath in regard to a matter material to the issue. The Court further invoked doctrinal statements from Wharton’s Criminal Law to describe perjury as a willful assertion of a falsehood under legal authority for the purpose of influencing law, including false assertions made in an affidavit or other form allowed by law. With these authorities, the Court held that in this jurisdiction it was perjury to submit false evidence in a judicial proceeding by means of an affidavit.

Public Policy and Practical Considerations

The Court also stressed public policy. It reasoned that a contrary doctrine—one insulating the defendant from perjury liability based solely on the place where the affidavit was subscribed and sworn—would enable interested persons to travel to other jurisdictions, swear affidavits falsely, and then file them into pending cases “with absolute impunity.” It pointed to procedural provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure al

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 9869)

The United States appealed from an order of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo Province that sustained a demurrer to the information for perjury and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
The appeal focused solely on a jurisdictional question, not on the sufficiency of the pleaded facts to constitute the offense of perjury in the abstract.
The Court followed substantially the line of reasoning adopted by the Attorney-General and affirmed the appellate result by setting aside the trial court’s jurisdictional ruling.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The provincial fiscal of Iloilo Province filed the original information for perjury on January 9, 1914.
The defendant Federico Canet interposed a demurrer, and the lower court sustained it and ordered the information amended.
An amended information was filed on March 2, 1914, charging perjury based on the submission of an affidavit in a civil case pending in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo.
The defendant filed a second demurrer, raising two grounds: (1) failure of the facts to constitute the crime charged, and (2) lack of jurisdiction because the alleged crime was not committed within the court’s territorial jurisdiction.
The trial court overruled the demurrer as to the first ground but sustained it as to the second, and dismissed the case on March 24, 1914.
The plaintiff appealed from the dismissal order.

Key Factual Allegations

The amended information alleged that on or about September 29, 1913, in the municipality of Iloilo, Iloilo Province, the defendant presented to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo a motion for annulment of a judgment in Civil Case docketed as No. 1842 titled “Abraham Weill, as attorney for Levy Hermanos, plaintiff, vs. Federico Canet, defendant.”
The motion sought reopening of the civil case, and the information alleged that the defendant presented as an integral part of the motion an affidavit signed by himself.
The information further alleged that before notary public J. E. Blanco, the defendant knowingly, willfully, intentionally, criminally, and falsely made, signed, and swore to as true the contents of the affidavit set out in the pleading.
The information asserted that the affidavit was false and contrary to the truth in multiple specified paragraphs, including paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 18, and that these statements were essential for determination of the civil suit.
The information alleged that the defendant deliberately, maliciously, and criminally swore to and presented the false affidavit to secure a decision and to prevent execution and sale of his property in the civil suit.
The affidavit narrative described a compromise and subsequent alleged fraud or noncompliance: it alleged that a compromise agreement had been executed, that an attachment had allegedly been raised based on telegram, and that the civil suit was allegedly not dismissed despite the claimed compact.
The affidavit also alleged that on March 28, 1913, through conspiracy between the plaintiff Abraham Weill and the defendant’s attorney Ruperto Montinola, a petition was submitted and judgment rendered against the deponent.
The affidavit concluded with the claim that the defendant had been a victim of surprise and deceit, and that the judgment was allegedly null and void due to the alleged lack of power or authorization of Weill as representative because he was allegedly not the real party in interest.

Contested Jurisdictional Issue

The trial court ruled that the crime charged was completed in Manila, reasoning that the affidavit upon which the perjury charge rested was subscribed and sworn before a notary in that city.
The Supreme Court framed the only question raised as jurisdiction, centering on whether perjury was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of First