People v. Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On October 19, 1948, the accused Rufo B. Cruz filled up Philippine Civil Service Form No. 2 (Application for examination) for the patrolman examination. In response to Question No. 6, which asked if he had ever been accused, indicted, or tried for any violation of law, ordinance, or regulation, he answered "No, I have never been accused of any sort whatsoever." This application was signed and sworn to by him before the municipal mayor of Cainta, Rizal. Procedural History: The accused was charged before the Court of First Instance of Rizal with falsification of documents. The lower court found him guilty and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty. The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court on the ground that the issues involved were purely legal. The Petition: The defense contended that the crime committed was perjury, which had already prescribed under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused committed perjury by making untruthful statements in his Civil Service application. Whether the crime of perjury, as defined under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code, has prescribed.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court with modification, sentencing the accused to suffer the penalty of from 4 months of arresto mayor as minimum to 1 year and 1 day of prision correccional as maximum, finding the accused guilty of perjury.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the accused committed perjury by making untruthful statements in his Civil Service application: The Court held that the accused committed perjury. The elements of the offense of perjury defined in Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code were found to concur in the present case. The accused, Rufo B. Cruz, knowingly made untruthful statements under oath in a material matter when he declared in his Civil Service application that he had never been accused, indicted, or tried for any violation of law, ordinance, or regulation. This statement was false because he had previously been charged and tried in Criminal Cases Nos. 522, 542, and 547 before the Justice of the Peace Court of Cainta, Rizal. The Court cited the case of United States vs. Tupasi Molina, which involved a similar factual scenario where an applicant falsely stated under oath that he had never been convicted of any crime, and was held to have committed perjury. The Court found no reason to deviate from this established jurisprudence. On whether the crime of perjury, as defined under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code, has prescribed: The Court ruled that the crime of perjury had not prescribed. The penalty for perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period. According to Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, crimes punishable by a correctional penalty prescribe in ten years, with the exception of those punishable by arresto mayor, which prescribe in five years. The Court clarified that when the penalty is a compound one, the highest penalty shall be the basis for determining prescription. Since the highest penalty for perjury is correctional, it prescribes in ten years. The Court calculated that from October 19, 1948, when the application was accomplished, to February 27, 1956, when the proceedings were instituted, only 7 years, 4 months, and 8 days had elapsed, which is within the ten-year prescriptive period. Therefore, the proceedings were commenced within the statutory period.
Main Doctrine
Making untruthful statements under oath in an application for Civil Service Examination, knowing the same to be false, constitutes perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code, and the crime prescribes in ten years.