People v. Akmad
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On March 15, 1928, an information was filed charging the defendant, Akmad, with subornation of perjury. The defendant waived preliminary investigation, and the case was forwarded to the Court of First Instance. The information alleged that Akmad wilfully, unlawfully, and maliciously caused Moro Palao to testify falsely in criminal case No. 1213 (People vs. Ugalingan) regarding the murder of Mamolintao. Specifically, Palao allegedly testified that he could not see Ugalingan on the night of the incident because it was dark and starless, which was contrary to his earlier statements to the justice of the peace and the provincial fiscal that the night was clear and starry. Palao allegedly changed his testimony because Akmad instructed him to do so and threatened him, stating that if he testified truthfully, he would be prosecuted and Ugalingan would be freed. Akmad allegedly knew his instructions were false and essential to Ugalingan's conviction or acquittal. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance found Akmad guilty of violating section 4 in relation to section 3 of Act No. 1697, as readopted by Act No. 2718. He was sentenced to a fine of P1,000, two years of imprisonment, subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and disqualification from holding public office and testifying in court. The dispositive portion of the decision was rendered in Spanish. The Petition: The defendant appealed the sentence, assigning errors related to the lower court's reliance on unproven facts, its holding that the established facts constituted subornation of perjury, its finding of guilt under Act No. 1697 as amended, and its sentencing of the defendant.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to establish the crime of subornation of perjury. Whether it was affirmatively shown that the alleged false testimony of Moro Palao was given under oath. Whether the prosecution complied with the best evidence rule in proving the alleged false testimony.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court, dismissed the information, and ordered the release of the defendant. The Court found the evidence insufficient to warrant conviction.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant conviction for subornation of perjury. The only evidence presented against Akmad was the testimony of Moro Palao, the alleged suborned witness, who merely declared that he testified falsely by Akmad's induction. The Court found this testimony alone to be insufficient to establish all the necessary elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. For a conviction, every essential element constituting the crime of perjury, which is the underlying offense for subornation, must be independently established by competent evidence. The prosecution failed to present the required corroborative and foundational evidence to support Palao's claim of false testimony by induction. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the record did not affirmatively show that the alleged false testimony of Palao, induced by Akmad, was actually given under oath. This is a crucial, indispensable requisite for both perjury and subornation of perjury. Citing United States vs. Ballena (18 Phil., 382), the Court reiterated that the prosecution must prove, among other things, "that the witness was duly sworn." The absence of affirmative proof that Palao's false statements were made under oath before a competent authority meant that a fundamental element of the crime was not established, thereby failing to meet the standard of competent evidence. On Issue 3: The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to present the best evidence to prove the alleged false testimony given by Palao in criminal cause No. 1213. The Court emphasized that a certified copy of Palao's actual testimony in the prior murder case should have been presented. This requirement is in conformity with the best evidence rule as prescribed in Section 59 of General Orders No. 58, which mandates that "the best evidence must be produced of which the case is susceptible." The failure to provide this direct and authoritative proof of the false testimony constituted a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case, as secondary evidence or mere oral testimony regarding the contents of the sworn statement was not sufficient.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution failed to present the best evidence to prove the alleged false testimony given by Palao in criminal cause No. 1213, as a certified copy of said testimony should have been presented. Furthermore, the record does not affirmatively show that the alleged false testimony was given under oath, which is an essential element of the crime of subornation of perjury.