Cheyzer Mendoza

Block B

Labor Law I
Atty. Miles

G.R. No. L-9878 December 24, 1914

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
FRANK TUPASI MOLINA, defendant-appellant.
Facts: Frank Tupasi signed a petition to be permitted to take examination for the position of municipal examination.
The said petition was also sworn before the notary public. Within the petition in one of the questions, Tupasi
answered that he was never indicted, tried nor sentenced to any violation of law, ordinance or regulations which was
punishable under Sec. 3 of Act No. 1697. But, in fact, defendant was arrested for three distinct offenses. Defendant
was charged and found guilty of the crime perjury under Sec. 3, Act No. 1697. He was sentenced for imprisonment
and pay a fine but in case of insolvency, subsidiary imprisonment shall be applied. In addition to this, he was
disqualified from holding any public office or from giving testimony in any court in the Philippines until the sentence
was reversed. On appeal, he posed that the trial court erred in holding that Sec. 3, Act No. 1697 was applicable in the
present case. He argued that the purpose of Act No. 1697 was to authorize the appointment of commissioners, to
make official investigations, fixing powers, for the payment of witness fees, and for the punishment of perjury in
official investigations. And the perjury punished in this provision applies only in particular cases.
Issue: Whether the petitioner incurred criminal liability on violating a regulation that attaches sanction that was
prescribed by an executive officer that is in conformity with a statute?
Held: The court held that it is the legislative who confers the authority to particular department of government to
adopt certain rules and regulations providing for the detail of the management and control of such department. And
as long as the regulation is in conformity with the purposes and objects of the statute then such regulation has a
force of law. And therefore violation of it would mean violation of law. And in the present case, the law punishes the
crime of perjury. Although it is under an executive regulation, such has a force of law and violation of it means there is
criminal liability. Therefore, petitioner can be charged and sentence of the crime of perjury.