Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

Juan Dela Cruz, Petitioner


Pedro Penduko, Respondent

x ------------------------------------------------ x


ACCUSED BC, by counsel, respectfully submits this

Memorandum to show that he is not guilty of perjury as alleged in

the Information.


This is a case for perjury against BC. The basis for this

charge is the affidavit-complaint he executed on May 7, 2011,

charging Police Officer XY with grave misconduct for the incident

that happened at the La Trinidad Police Station on May 4, 2011. BC

stated in his affidavit-complaint that on that day XY threatened him

with bodily harm. The prosecution, however, was able to show that

XY was in the United States on May 4, 2011.


At about 6:30 o’clock in the evening of May 4, 2011, BC was

mauled at Km. 4, La Trinidad, Benguet, by three men whose names


he came to know later as KL, MN, and OP.1 Accompanied by his

wife and a barangay tanod, BC went to the police station at Km. 5,

La Trinidad, to report the incident, but the police officer on duty

advised him to go to the nearby Benguet General Hospital first for

treatment of his injuries. 2 He was treated at the hospital by Dr. FG

who issued him a Medico-Legal Certificate3.

After he was treated, BC prepared to go to the police station.

But while he was at the door of the hospital, he was again mauled by

KL, MN, and OP.4 So back to the hospital he went. He was treated -

again - by Dr. FG who issued another Medico-Legal Certificate5.

From the hospital, he proceeded to the police station to lodge

a complaint against those who had mauled him. While he and

several persons were at the police station, a man, who introduced

himself as Police Officer XY and cousin of KL, arrived and

threatened BC with bodily harm if he would not withdraw his


BC’s testimony about the incident that happened at the police

station was substantially corroborated by two eye-witnesses, RC

and JC, who separately executed their respective affidavits6.

Tsn, Feb. 18, 2009, at pp. 3-5.
Ibid., at p. 6.
Exh. “1”.
Tsn, Feb. 18, 2009, at pp. 7-8.
Exh. “2”.
Exhs. “4” and “5”.

On May 7, 2011, BC executed an affidavit-complaint charging

XY with grave misconduct. The prosecution, however, was able to

prove that on May 4, 2011, XY was in the United States, and

therefore he could not have been at the La Trinidad Police Station

on that day. As it turned out, the one who threatened BC at the

police station was not XY.


The issues in this case are:

a) Whether or not BC made a deliberate statement of


b) Whether or not the false statement was made before an

officer authorized to administer oaths.


a) Accused BC did not

make a deliberate statement of

Perjury is defined and penalized under Article 183 of the

Revised Penal Code. In Padua v. Paz, A.M. No. P-00-1445, April


30, 2003, the Supreme Court restated the four elements of perjury,

namely: (1) that the accused made a statement under oath upon a

material matter; (2) that the statement was made before a

competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath; (3) that

the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood in

the statement; and (4) that the sworn statement containing the falsity

is required by law or made for legal purpose.7

Perjury is a felony by dolo because it is required that the

statement made by the accused is a willful and deliberate assertion

of a falsehood. The Supreme Court, in Monfort III, et al. v.

Salvatierra, et al., G.R. No. 168301, March 5, 2007, has explained

the law on perjury in this wise:

“Perjury being a felony by dolo, there

must be malice on the part of the accused.
Willfully means intentionally, with evil intent
and legal malice, with consciousness that
the alleged perjurious statement is false with
the intent that it should be received as a
statement of what was true in fact. It is
equivalent to `knowingly.’ ‘Deliberately’
implies ‘meditated’ as distinguished from
`inadvertent acts.’ It must appear that the
accused knows his statement to be false or
is consciously ignorant of its truth.”

Assuming that BC’s affidavit-complaint8 contains false

statement, the prosecution has failed to show that he was aware of

See also: Reyes, Luis B., The Revised Penal Code, Book Two, c. 1998, at p. 272.
Exh. “B” [also Exh. “6”].

the falsity of his statement. The fact is, at the time BC made his

Affidavit-Complaint, he thought his statement was true. He was, to

borrow the words of the Supreme Court, consciously ignorant of its

truth. In making the statement, he did not act with evil intent. On

the contrary, he acted in good faith, in a legitimate act to seek relief

for the wrong done to him.

In fact, RC and JC who were present during the incident at the

La Trinidad police station were of the same perception. They, too,

believed in good faith that the one who arrived at the police station

was Police Officer XY because that was how that person announced

himself to be. The way that person acted at that time led everyone

to believe that he was Police Officer XY.

Having been mauled twice in close succession, BC made an

affidavit-complaint, charging the person whom he honestly thought

at that time to be Police Officer XY with an administrative offense.

That BC presented his affidavit-complaint to the Philippine National

Police Provincial Internal Affairs Service (PIAS-CAR) demonstrates

his good faith. It means that he had no other purpose but to

legitimately seek redress for his grievance.

In Villanueva v. Hon. Secretary of Justice, et al., G.R. No.

162187, Nov. 18, 2005, it was held that “a mere assertion of a false

objective fact, a falsehood, is not enough. The assertion must be


deliberate and willful.” Here, there might have been an assertion of

a false objective fact regarding the presence of XY at the La Trinidad

police station on May 4, 2011, but such assertion was not deliberate

and willful. As held in People v. Abaya, 74 Phil. 59, good faith is a

defense in perjury.

b) The prosecution failed to

prove that the statement was
made before a competent officer
authorized to administer oath.

The all-familiar rule in this jurisdiction is that in criminal

prosecutions the plaintiff has the burden of proof. This burden of

proof imposes upon the prosecution the duty to prove all the

elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt.

All the prosecution did in this case was to offer in evidence

Exh. “B”, which is the affidavit-complaint of BC, “to form part of the

testimony of Police Officer XY”9 That, it is respectfully submitted, is

not enough.

Since one element of the offense is that “the statement was

made before a competent officer authorized to receive and

administer oath,” the prosecution should have presented evidence to

show that the person before whom the statement was made was a

duly commissioned notary public in Benguet Province on the date

Formal Offer of Exhibits for the Prosecution.

appearing on the affidavit-complaint. The words “notary public”

below the name QRS is hopelessly insufficient to prove this element.

Since this is a criminal prosecution, the words “notary public” cannot

support the presumption that the person whose name appears

thereon is authorized to receive and administer oath. The

prosecution cannot rely on presumptions or conjectures.

Besides, there is likewise no evidence, because none was

presented by the prosecution, as to whose signature appears above

the name QRS. This, too, cannot be presumed.


WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be

rendered acquitting BC of perjury. Other reliefs just and equitable

are also prayed for.

BAGUO CITY, PHILIPPINES, this 27th day of November,


(Counsel for the Accused)

Copy furnished (by personal service):

Office of the Provincial Prosecutor

La Trinidad, Benguet