Elements of The Crime of Perjury
Elements of The Crime of Perjury
Elements of The Crime of Perjury
The elements of Perjury, culled from Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code, are as follows:
“(a) The accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material
matter;
(b) The statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer authorized to receive
and administer oaths;
(c) In the statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a
falsehood; and
(d) The sworn statement containing the falsity is required by law or for a legal purpose.”
(Reyes, Luis B., The Revised Penal Code Book II, p. 272, 1998 Ed.)
The first element of the crime of Perjury requires the offender to a) make a statement under
oath, and b) upon a material matter. Therefore, not all lies made in an affidavit or other
statement under oath can be subject of a perjury complaint. The Revised Penal Code further
requires that the lie, made under oath, must be upon a material matter.
A material matter has been defined as the main fact, which is the subject of the inquiry, or any
fact or circumstance which tends to prove that fact, or any fact or circumstance which tends to
corroborate or strengthen the testimony relative to the subject of inquiry, or which
legitimately affects the credit of any witness who testifies. (Masangkay vs. People, G.R. No.
164443, 18 June 2010.) Thus, where, for example, a false statement is made as regards the
address of a person, in an affidavit concerning a vehicular collision to be submitted with an
insurer, and the vehicular collision occurred somewhere else (the false address being part of
the document as a requirement of form but not a legal requirement) such false statement,
while deplorable, is not actionable as Perjury under the Revised Penal Code, because the
address of a person, under such circumstances, is neither the main subject of the inquiry, or a
main fact.
As for the second requirement, all that the law requires is the sworn statement or affidavit
containing the falsehood be made before a person competent to administer oaths. A notary
public is the most common example of a person authorized to administer oaths. Also, certain
public officers are granted such power or authority, in relation to the exercise of their
functions, such as policemen, who in certain capacities, can subscribe to a sworn statement,
thereby fulfilling the legal requisite.
The third element of the crime of Perjury requires that the person making the false statement
must do so willfully or deliberately. The term willfully has been defined as “intentionally,
with evil intent and legal malice, with consciousness that the alleged perjurious statement is
false with the intent that it should be received as a statement of what was true in fact. It is
equivalent to “knowingly.” “Deliberately” implies “meditated” as distinguished from
“inadvertent acts.” Therefore, to satisfy this requisite, it must appear that the accused knows
his statement to be false or is consciously ignorant of its truth. (Monfort III, et. al. vs.
Salvatierra, et. al., G.R. No. 168301, 05 March 2007.)
In relation to the third element of Perjury, quite clearly, honest mistakes in factual statements,
made under oath, are forgivable. However, good faith must be proven – that the mistake was
not made intentionally, or that the person who executed the affidavit with the falsity, did so
through oversight or inadvertence.
The final and arguably most significant element, for a willful assertion of falsehood to be
punishable as Perjury, is that the affidavit or sworn statement must be required by law or for a
legal purpose. Not all affidavits, even if containing absolute falsehoods, can subject a person
to the crime of Perjury. The Revised Penal Code requires that the sworn statement or affidavit
must be executed pursuance to a legal requirement.
Thus, in our previous example about the affidavit concerning a vehicular collision containing
a false address, if there is a particular law that requires the submission of an affidavit prior to
making an insurance claim, and, more importantly, a particular legal requirement to disclose
such address in the affidavit or sworn statement, then the lie becomes a material matter. More
importantly, the person that executed such false affidavit may arguably be liable for the crime
of Perjury because the affidavit is submitted as part of a legal requirement or in compliance
with the law.
--
(US vs Ballena, 18 Phil 382 (1912)
(Union Bank of the Philippines and Desi Tomas vs People of the Philippines, Feb. 8,
2012) GR. NO. 192 565
To reiterate for the guidance of the Bar and the Bench, the crime of perjury committed
through the making of a false affidavit under Article 183 of the RPC is committed at the time
the affiant subscribes and swears to his or her affidavit since it is at that time that all the
elements of the crime of perjury are executed. When the crime is committed through false
testimony under oath in a proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, venue is at the place
where the testimony under oath is given. If in lieu of or as supplement to the actual testimony
made in a proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, a written sworn statement is submitted,
venue may either be at the place where the sworn statement is submitted or where the oath
was taken as the taking of the oath and the submission are both material ingredients of the
crime committed. In all cases, determination of venue shall be based on the acts alleged in the
Information to be constitutive of the crime committed.
We cannot go along with the submission of the petitioner and the Solicitor General that
petitioner could no longer be prosecuted for perjury in view of the withdrawal of the petition
for naturalization containing his false material statements. In this jurisdiction, it is not
necessary that the proceeding in which the perjury is alleged to have been committed be first
terminated before a prosecution for the said crime is commenced. At the time he filed his
petition for naturalization, he had committed perjury. As discussed earlier, all the elements of
the crime were already present then. He knew all along that he wilfully stated material
falsities in his verified petition. Surprisingly, he withdrew his petition without even stating
any reason therefor.19 But such withdrawal only terminated the proceedings for
naturalization. It did not extinguish his culpability for perjury he already committed. Indeed,
the fact of withdrawal alone cannot bar the State from prosecuting petitioner, an alien, who
made a mockery not only of the Philippine naturalization law but the judicial proceedings as
well. And the petition for naturalization tainted with material falsities can be used as evidence
of his unlawful act.
Court emphatically stressed that every interest of public policy demands that perjury be not
shielded by artificial refinements and narrow technicalities. For perjury strikes at the
administration of the laws. It is the policy of the law that judicial proceedings and judgments
be fair and free from fraud, and that litigants and parties be encouraged to tell the truth, and
that they be punished if they do not."
More importantly, it must be emphasized that perjury is the willful and corrupt assertion of a
falsehood under oath or affirmation administered by authority of law on a material matter.
Thus, a mere assertion of a false objective fact or a falsehood is not enough. The assertion
must be deliberate and willful.
Supreme Court held that good faith or lack of malice is a valid defense vis-a-vis the allegation
objective fact or a falsehood is not enough. The assertion must be deliberate and willful.