Flordelis v. Himalaloan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Gotardo Flordelis was charged with perjury in an information filed with the City Court of Tagbilaran City. The charge stemmed from a verified answer he executed and filed in a civil case, wherein he allegedly stated he did not owe Atty. Sulpicio Tinampay any debt nor had he engaged his legal services, when in truth and in fact, he had engaged such services in two prior criminal cases. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a motion to quash the information on the grounds that the facts charged do not constitute an offense and that the information contains averments constituting a defense. The respondent Acting City Judge denied the motion, stating that the issues raised were questions of evidence that could not be resolved without allowing the prosecution to present its evidence. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the order of the respondent judge denying his motion to quash.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash the information for perjury. Whether the facts charged in the information constitute the crime of perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the statements made in the verified answer are absolutely privileged.
Ruling
The petition is granted, and the respondent court is ordered to dismiss the information for perjury against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari and prohibition: The Court reiterated that certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies when a motion to quash is denied, especially when the information is patently defective or the offense charged has already prescribed, as proceeding to trial in such cases would be unfair and unjust. The ordinary remedy of appeal would not be plain and adequate. On whether the facts charged constitute perjury: The Court found that one essential element of perjury, namely, that the sworn statement must be required by law, was absent. The information alleged that the false statement was made in a "verified answer to the complaint of Atty. Sulpicio Tinampay and filed with the City Court of Tagbilaran City." The Court noted that an answer to a complaint in an ordinary civil action does not require verification by law, and therefore, a false statement therein, even if under oath, would not constitute perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code. On whether the statements are absolutely privileged: The Court also pointed out that any statement contained in an appropriate pleading filed in court that is relevant to the issues in the case is absolutely privileged and cannot be the subject of a criminal prosecution. The Court found that the respondent judge erred in not considering the pleadings attached to the motion to quash, which clearly showed that the statements were made in a civil action's pleadings, making them potentially privileged.
Main Doctrine
A motion to quash a criminal information based on the alleged absence of an element of the crime or the presence of a defense, which can be determined from the face of the information and attached pleadings, should be granted, as proceeding to trial would be premature and unjust. The requirement that a sworn statement must be required by law for perjury to be committed is a substantive element that can be assessed early in the proceedings.