People v. Concepcion
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Jose Tandiana and others were accused of violating the Gambling Law. Their conviction in the municipal court was appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila. A key prosecution witness in this gambling case was Cornelio Dungao. Subsequently, Dungao was charged with perjury for allegedly making a false statement about his marital status in an application for a marriage license, and also with illegal marriage for contracting a second marriage while still legally married. 2. Procedural History: The gambling case, appealed to the Court of First Instance, was proceeding when the perjury and illegal marriage charges against the witness Dungao were filed. In the perjury case, the judge dismissed the charges, stating he lacked jurisdiction due to improper venue, though he remarked that Dungao's statement was false. In the illegal marriage case, Dungao was found guilty and appealed to the Supreme Court. When the gambling case resumed, the defense moved to strike Dungao's prior testimony, arguing he had been declared a perjurer. The respondent judge granted this motion, striking the testimony. 3. The Petition: The People of the Philippine Islands, through the Attorney-General, filed this petition for certiorari, treated as mandamus, seeking to nullify the order striking Dungao's testimony. The core argument is that a mere statement of guilt in a dismissed perjury case, especially when dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, does not disqualify a witness. The petition asserts that without a conviction and sentence for perjury by a competent court, Dungao remains competent to testify, and the respondent judge erred in striking his testimony and refusing to allow him to continue. The People seek reinstatement of the testimony and permission for Dungao to testify.
Issue(s)
Whether a person charged with perjury, but whose case was dismissed by the trial court for lack of jurisdiction, is disqualified from testifying as a witness. Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion or acted without jurisdiction in striking the testimony of Cornelio Dungao from the record.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the order of the respondent judge, and ordered the reinstatement of Cornelio Dungao's testimony and that he be permitted to continue testifying.
Ratio Decidendi
On the disqualification of Cornelio Dungao as a witness: The Court held that Section 3 of Act No. 1697 explicitly disqualifies a person from testifying only after being convicted and sentenced for the crime of perjury. In this case, the perjury charge against Cornelio Dungao was dismissed by the trial court due to lack of jurisdiction over the venue of action. While the judge incidentally remarked that Dungao had committed perjury, this statement lacked legal effect because the court declared it had no jurisdiction to hear the case. Consequently, Dungao was still presumed innocent in the eyes of the law, as he had not been convicted by a competent court after due process. Therefore, he was not legally disqualified to testify. On the respondent judge's order to strike the testimony: The Court found that the respondent judge erred in striking the testimony of Cornelio Dungao. As there was no legal conviction for perjury, Dungao was not disqualified. The fiscal had a duty to present evidence in the gambling case, and the judge was obligated to permit Dungao to testify. By refusing to do so and ordering the testimony stricken, the respondent judge failed to perform his judicial duty. The Court reiterated that a judge refusing to permit a witness, who is not legally disqualified, to testify may be compelled by a writ of mandamus.
Main Doctrine
A person charged with perjury, but neither convicted nor sentenced by a competent judge, is not disqualified to testify as a witness, and a court or judge refusing to permit such testimony may be compelled by mandamus.