Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 199 views

    144692

    Uploaded by

    Jhoey Bueno
    The document discusses a case between Celsa P. Acuña and Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon regarding a complaint of perjury. The Supreme Court ruled that the elements of perjury were not met as the statements in question were not material to the case and did not constitute willful falsehood.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    144692

    Uploaded by

    Jhoey Bueno
    199 views1 page
    The document discusses a case between Celsa P. Acuña and Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon regarding a complaint of perjury. The Supreme Court ruled that the elements of perjury were not met as the statements in question were not material to the case and did not constitute willful falsehood.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case between Celsa P. Acuña and Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon regarding a complaint of perjury. The Supreme Court ruled that the elements of perjury were not met as the statements in question were not material to the case and did not constitute willful falsehood.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as odt, pdf, or txt
    199 views1 page

    144692

    Uploaded by

    Jhoey Bueno
    The document discusses a case between Celsa P. Acuña and Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon regarding a complaint of perjury. The Supreme Court ruled that the elements of perjury were not met as the statements in question were not material to the case and did not constitute willful falsehood.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as odt, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    CELSA P. ACUA vs.

    DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON, PEDRO PASCUA and RONNIE TURLA, (Angeles City National Trade School) G.R. No. 14469, January 31, 2005 Facts: Petitioner Celsa P. Acua is a former teacher of the Angeles City National Trade School ("ACNTS") in Angeles City, Pampanga file a case of perjury against respondent Pedro Pascua who was ACNTS Officer-In-Charge and a certain Ronnie Turla who was also a member of its faculty. The complaint was commence during the meeting initiated by a certain Erlinda Yabut and other personnel of the school wherein the petitioner charged the respondent with misconduct before the meeting will took place. The case was brought to the Ombudsman but it was dismissed for lack of evidence. Petitioner sought for reconsideration but it was denied. Hence this brought to the Supreme Court contending that the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon committed grave abused of discretion in dismissing her complaint. Issue: Whether or not the respondent guilty of perjury. Ruling: No. The Supreme Court ruled that in prosecutions for perjury, a matter is material if it is the "main fact which was the subject of the inquiry, or any circumstance which tends to prove that fact. To hold private respondents liable, there must be evidence that their assailed statements in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 were the subject of inquiry in that case. Petitioner has presented no such evidence. The records are hardly helpful, as petitioner did not furnish the Court a copy of her complaint in Ombudsman. The elements of perjury under Article 18322 of the Revised Penal Code are: (a) that the accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter; (b) that the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath; (c) that in that statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood; and, (d) that the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose.23 (Emphasis supplied) Public respondent correctly ruled that the first and third elements are absent here in that private respondents statements in their counter-affidavits in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 were not material to that case nor do they constitute willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood. There is grave abuse of discretion where power is exercised in arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility. The abuse must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty or to act at all in contemplation of law. No such conduct can be imputed on public respondent. Public respondent disposed of petitioners complaint consistent with applicable law.

    You might also like