G.R. No. 6668 - People vs. Laserna

Case Summary (G.R. No. 6668)

Factual Background

During the prosecution of Fausto Briones and Estanislao Carrido for the theft of a cow, both cases were tried separately in the Court of First Instance of Tayabas. Before a hearing in either case was conducted—specifically, a hearing set for November 15, 1910, at 9:00 o’clock in the morning—Laserna, identified as a protector of Carrido, went at about 8:30 that morning to the jail of the province, where he called Fausto Briones and gave him P10. At the same time, Laserna told Briones to assume responsibility for the theft and to testify that although he had designated one Estanislao in earlier testimony, he did not know that person and that the person referred to was not Estanislao Carrido, his codefendant.

Half an hour later, on the scheduled hearing, Briones repeated the substance of his previous statements in the preliminary investigation. According to the narration, Briones testified that the cow had been delivered to him by his codefendant, Estanislao Carrido. Although Briones had received the P10 from Laserna for the accomplishment of Laserna’s purpose, Briones testified that Laserna had not promised him that he would deny the testimony he had earlier given. Because of these circumstances, the provincial fiscal, on November 26, 1910, filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Tayabas charging Laserna with subornation of perjury.

Trial Court Proceedings and Judgment of Conviction

After the filing of the complaint, and considering the evidence adduced, the Court of First Instance rendered judgment on December 5, 1910. It sentenced Jose Laserna to three months’ imprisonment and to pay a fine of P50, with twenty days’ subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The court further ordered disqualification from holding public office for a period of two years and disqualification from giving testimony before the courts of these Islands for an equal term, except in cases where the defendant should be one of the parties. The court assessed the costs against Laserna and ordered that the P10 seized be confiscated.

The Charge and the Structure of the Alleged Criminal Design

The accusation stated that Laserna had specially advised and attempted to induce Briones—described as a codefendant and coperpetrator in the cow theft—to accept responsibility and to testify falsely at the trial. The alleged false testimony was that the person named Estanislao in the preliminary investigation was not Estanislao Carrido, and that Briones did not know the person he had previously designated.

The decision recounted that Laserna was interested in favor of Carrido, who was portrayed as his protege. Laserna sought Carrido’s acquittal in the pending theft case and also sought to obtain that result for Briones. Despite Laserna’s proposal and inducement, Briones corroborated his previous testimony. In the course of his testimony, Briones stated that despite Laserna’s proposal to retract the earlier sworn statements and testify falsely in Carrido’s behalf, Briones did not promise Laserna that he would deny his previous testimony against Carrido. Instead, Briones ratified his earlier testimony and repeated it at the trial.

Appellate Issue: Punishability Despite Failure to Commit Perjury

The appellate issue was whether the punishable act of subornation of perjury could be deemed accomplished and punishable even though the crime of perjury was not committed. Stated differently, the Court confronted whether instigation or persuasion, aimed at impelling another to commit perjury, is itself a punishable act apart from the actual accomplishment of the intended perjury.

Governing Statutory Framework under Act No. 1697

The Court quoted Act No. 1697, section 3, which defined perjury as willfully making or subscribing, contrary to a lawful oath, a material statement the affiant does not believe to be true, with penalties including a fine and imprisonment, and with incapacity to hold public office or give testimony in any court until the judgment against the perjurer is reversed. It also quoted section 4 of the same Act, which provided that any person who causes or procures another person to commit perjury, as defined in section 3, is guilty of subornation of perjury and punished with the same penalty prescribed for perjury.

Court’s Reasoning: “Causes or Procures” Requires False Testimony

The Court held that, under the statutory scheme and the Penal Code’s system, only acts that directly tend toward the commission of a crime were punishable, and that an uncompleted criminal design is generally not punishable unless the law specially penalizes it. It treated the proposal made to another to commit a criminal act as no more than a criminal proposition for the person who would carry it out. The Court invoked the concept, expressed through the Penal Code, that principals include those who directly force or induce others to commit a crime, whether the inducement is by command, agreement, or other efficacious instigation.

Nevertheless, it stressed that the statutory text of section 4 of Act No. 1697 indicates that the suborner’s liability hinges on the attainment of the criminal purpose. The Court reasoned that, when section 4 states that the offender must cause or procure the commission of perjury, those words were to be understood as requiring that the suborned person testified falsely, contrary to the oath, and thereby actually committed perjury. The Court relied on earlier jurisprudence cited in the decision: U. S. vs. Oruga (6 Phil. Rep., 351) for the interpretation of the same wording, and U. S. vs. Ballena (18 Phil. Rep., 382) for the principle that punishment of the suborner required that the person suborned testified falsely and committed perjury.

Applying that construction to the facts, the Court found that Briones did not testify falsely. Despite receiving the P10 and despite Laserna’s efforts to persuade him to retract and give different testimony to favor Carrido, Briones ratified his

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 6668)

The case involved an appeal by Jose Laserna from his conviction for subornation of perjury rendered by the Honorable Judge Mariano Cui in the Court of First Instance of Tayabas.
The prosecution originated from separate proceedings against Fausto Briones and Estanislao Carrido for the theft of a cow, tried separately in the same court.
While both cases were pending, and before the hearing in either case, Laserna acted as a protector of Carrido and attempted to influence Briones regarding his testimony.
The Supreme Court reviewed the central question whether subornation of perjury could be punished when the induced perjury was not committed.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The United States appeared as plaintiff and appellee.
Jose Laserna appeared as defendant and appellant.
The provincial fiscal filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Tayabas charging Laserna with subornation of perjury.
The trial court convicted Laserna and rendered judgment on December 5, sentencing him to imprisonment, a fine, subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, disqualification from holding public office for two years, disqualification from giving testimony before courts for an equal term (subject to the exception where he was a party), and assessment of costs against him.
Laserna appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and absolved Laserna.

Key Factual Allegations

Prior to the scheduled hearing on November 15, 1910 at 9 o’clock in the morning, Laserna visited the Tayabas jail where Fausto Briones was held.
At about 8:30 that morning, Laserna gave Briones P10.
Laserna instructed Briones to assume responsibility for the theft and to testify falsely that the person named Estanislao was not Estanislao Carrido, his codefendant.
Laserna’s objective was to benefit Estanislao Carrido, whom Laserna allegedly protected, and to secure Carrido’s acquittal in the pending theft case.
On the hearing occurring about half an hour after the jail interview, Briones repeated his preliminary investigation statements.
Briones testified that the animal in question had been delivered to him by Estanislao Carrido.
Briones also stated that, although he received P10 from Laserna to accomplish the purpose desired, Laserna had not promised him that he would deny Briones’ earlier testimony against Carrido.
The trial narrative further emphasized that Briones, despite Laserna’s proposal that he retract his prior testimony, refused to testify falsely and instead ratified his prior incriminating statements.
The evidence showed that Laserna intended to induce perjury but did not succeed because Briones did not abandon his sworn account.

Trial Court Judgment

The provincial fiscal filed the subornation of perjury complaint on November 26.
The trial court found sufficient basis to convict Laserna.
The court sentenced Laserna to three months’ imprisonment.
The court imposed a fine of P50, with twenty days’ subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The court further imposed disqualification from holding public office for two years and disqualification for an equal term from giving testimony before the courts of these Islands, with an exception when the defendant would be one of the parties.
The court assessed costs against Laserna.
The court ordered the seized P10 paid to briones to be confiscated.
The Supreme Court later reversed this judgment and absolved Laserna.

Statutory Framework

Act No. 1697 governed perjury and subornation of perjury in the case.
Section 3 of Act No. 1697 defined perjury and provided that a person who, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal or authorized officer, willfully states or subscribes a material matter that he does not believe to be true is guilty of perjury.
Section 4 of Act No. 1697 provided that any person who causes or procures another person to commit perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury and is punished as in the penalty prescribed for perjury.
The Court also relied on the Penal Code, s