United States v. Soliman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The defendant, Gabino Soliman, was charged with perjury for allegedly swearing falsely in his own defense during a prior criminal case for estafa. Specifically, he testified that a sworn statement, which was an extrajudicial confession of his guilt, was not voluntarily executed and was procured through force, intimidation, and torture. Procedural History: The trial judge in the estafa case acquitted the accused due to reasonable doubt regarding the voluntariness of the confession, establishing the materiality of Soliman's false testimony. The trial court in the perjury case convicted Soliman and imposed a sentence of six months' imprisonment and a P300 fine under Section 3 of Act No. 1697. The Petition: The appellant argued that the repeal of Section 3 of Act No. 1697 by the Administrative Code (effective July 1, 1916) should extinguish his criminal responsibility. The case also raised questions regarding the penalty to be imposed and whether an accused testifying in their own behalf could be guilty of perjury.
Issue(s)
Whether the repeal of Act No. 1697 by the Administrative Code extinguished the criminal liability of the accused for perjury committed prior to the repeal. Whether the provisions of the Penal Code touching perjury were revived by the repeal of Act No. 1697. Whether an accused person testifying in their own behalf in a criminal case can be convicted of perjury for giving false testimony. What penalty should be imposed upon the convict, considering the repeal and potential revival of statutes.
Ruling
The Court affirmed the judgment of conviction but reversed the sentence imposed. It ruled that the repeal of Act No. 1697 revived the provisions of the Penal Code concerning perjury. The Court held that an accused testifying in their own behalf can be guilty of perjury. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the trial court was revoked, and a penalty prescribed in the Penal Code, which was more favorable to the convict, was imposed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the repeal of Act No. 1697 and revival of the Penal Code: The Court held that the repeal of Section 3 of Act No. 1697 by the Administrative Code did not extinguish the criminal liability incurred prior to the repeal. Citing United States v. Cuna, the Court stated that the rule of interpretation in the Philippines is not that repeal extinguishes penalties for offenses committed before repeal, unless the new law is more favorable. The Court further reasoned that the repeal of Act No. 1697, which had implicitly repealed provisions of the Penal Code on perjury, revived those Penal Code provisions. This revival was inferred from the rule that the repeal of a repealing act, when the repeal is not express, revives the prior law unless otherwise provided. The Court noted that Section 12 of the Administrative Code explicitly states that when a law expressly repealing a prior law is itself repealed, the first repealed law is not revived unless expressly provided, implying that this rule does not apply to implied repeals. On the materiality of the false testimony: The Court affirmed the materiality of the false testimony, noting that the trial judge in the estafa case acquitted the accused due to reasonable doubt concerning the voluntariness of the confession, which was directly contradicted by Soliman's false testimony. The Court also stated that the materiality was manifest as the false testimony, if accepted, would have rendered the confession incompetent evidence, thereby preventing a conviction. On the liability of an accused testifying in their own behalf for perjury: The Court held that an accused person testifying in their own behalf in a criminal case can be convicted of perjury. Analogizing to civil cases where parties can testify, the Court reasoned that under General Orders No. 58, an accused may testify under oath, and if they declare falsely, they incur the penalty for false testimony. The Court acknowledged concerns about exposing accused persons to vexatious prosecutions but emphasized that the right to testify is for the truth, not to introduce false testimony. The Court stressed that prosecuting officers should exercise sound judgment, but when an accused voluntarily testifies and falsely imputes grave offenses to others, they should be held accountable. On the penalty to be imposed: The Court determined that the penalty prescribed in the Penal Code for perjury was more favorable to the convict than that imposed under Act No. 1697. Applying the principle that penal laws have retroactive effect in so far as they favor the person convicted, the Court revoked the sentence imposed by the trial court and imposed the penalty prescribed in the Penal Code, specifically Article 319, which was more lenient. The Court calculated the penalty as 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor and a fine of P75, with subsidiary imprisonment.
Main Doctrine
The repeal of a penal statute does not extinguish criminal liability incurred prior to its repeal, unless the new statute provides more favorable penalties and the accused benefits from it. Furthermore, an accused testifying in their own behalf in a criminal case can be held liable for perjury if they give false testimony.