People v. Pablo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Policeman Andres Pablo was ordered to raid a jueteng game in barrio Tuyo. Upon arrival, the players had fled, but Pablo found Francisco Dato, a low table, a tambiolo, and 37 bolas. He saw Maximo Malicsi and Antonio Rodrigo leave the area but did not arrest them, only arresting Dato who remained. Pablo reported the raid, mentioning the jueteng na bilat game, the seized items, and the escape of Malicsi and Rodrigo, whom he identified as cabecillas (ringleaders). Procedural History: A complaint was filed in the justice of the peace court charging Rodrigo, Malicsi, and Dato with violating a municipal ordinance on gambling. Dato pleaded guilty. Malicsi and Rodrigo pleaded not guilty. Policeman Pablo testified that he did not see Malicsi and Rodrigo run, only finding the table, tambiolo, and bolas, and that he learned they were cabecillas from an unknown person. Based on this testimony, Rodrigo and Malicsi were acquitted, while Dato was sentenced. The Appeal: Subsequently, the provincial fiscal filed an information charging Andres Pablo with perjury for his testimony in the justice of the peace court. The information alleged that Pablo willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously swore that he did not see the accused Antonio Rodrigo and Maximo Malicsi, nor did he see them run, which statement was false and material to the case. The Court of First Instance convicted Pablo of perjury and sentenced him. Pablo appealed this conviction.
Issue(s)
Whether Andres Pablo committed perjury when he testified in the justice of the peace court that he did not see Maximo Malicsi and Antonio Rodrigo in the place where a jueteng game was being conducted. Whether the repeal of Act No. 1697 by the Administrative Code decriminalized perjury or false testimony, and if the provisions of the Penal Code on false testimony remain in force.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance and sentenced Andres Pablo to two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional, to pay a fine of 1,000 pesetas, and to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The Court held that Pablo committed perjury, aggravated by bribery, and that the crime of false testimony remained punishable under the Penal Code despite the repeal of Act No. 1697.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found that Andres Pablo committed perjury. The evidence showed that Pablo, a policeman, had agreed with Malicsi and Rodrigo to exclude them from the charge and his testimony in exchange for P15. Despite seeing them in the vicinity of the jueteng game and knowing they were involved, Pablo falsely testified that he did not see them nor did he see them run. This false statement was material to the criminal case against Malicsi and Rodrigo. The testimony of Francisco Dato and Gregorio Ganzon corroborated that Pablo received a bribe for his false testimony, establishing the aggravating circumstance of price or reward under Article 10, No. 3 of the Code. On Issue 2: The Court addressed the complex issue of statutory repeal and the continuity of penal laws. It acknowledged that Act No. 1697, which punished perjury, was repealed by the Administrative Code (Act No. 2657). However, the Court emphasized that the Penal Code provisions (Articles 318-324) on false testimony were not expressly repealed by either Act No. 1697 or the Administrative Code. Citing the principle that laws not expressly repealed remain in force and the imperative societal need to punish perjury, the Court held that Articles 318-324 of the Penal Code were still applicable. This interpretation, consistent with Spanish legal tradition and the Novisima Recopilacion, ensured that the crime of false testimony did not go unpunished.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court held that the crime of perjury, or false testimony, remains punishable in the Philippines despite the repeal of Act No. 1697 by the Administrative Code. The Court reasoned that the Penal Code provisions (Articles 318-324) concerning false testimony were not expressly repealed and, in light of the imperative need to punish such crimes, were deemed to remain in force. This interpretation ensures that the perversion of truth under oath, especially when motivated by bribery, continues to be subject to penal sanctions, upholding the integrity of judicial proceedings and social order.