In this case, Tomas is charged with the crime of perjury under Article 183 of the RPC for making a

false Certificate against Forum Shopping. The elements of perjury under Article 183 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 the statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a
falsehood.

(d) That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for
a legal purpose.15

G.R. No. 192565 February 28, 2012

UNION BANK OF THE, PHILIPPINES and DESI TOMAS, Petitioners,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

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.43

In the case at bar, even assuming that respondent was required to disclose the Zamboanga case,
petitioner failed to establish that respondent’s failure to do so was willful and deliberate. Thus, an
essential element of the crime of perjury is absent.

G.R. No. 182291 September 22, 2010

PHILIP S. YU, Petitioner,

vs.
HERNAN G. LIM,

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)

G.R. No. 144692 January 31, 2005

CELSA P. ACUÑA, petitioner,
vs.
DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON, PEDRO PASCUA and RONNIE TURLA, (Angeles City
National Trade School)

On the Element of Materiality

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 xxx."24 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 OMB-ADM-1-99-0387.

What is before the Court is a portion of respondent Pascua’s counter-affidavit in that case as quoted
by public respondent in his 4 April 2000 Resolution. Admittedly, some inference is possible from this
quoted material, namely, that the basis of petitioner’s complaint in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 is that
respondent Pascua prevented her from taking part in the 16 July 1998 meeting. However, it would
be improper for the Court to rely on such inference because the element of materiality must be
established by evidence and not left to inference.25

At any rate, petitioner’s complaint for perjury will still not prosper because respondent Pascua’s
statement — that OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 is significantly the same as petitioner’s and Yabut’s
administrative complaint against respondent Pascua before the DECS — is immaterial to the
inferred issue.

On the Element of Deliberate Assertion of Falsehood

The third element of perjury requires that the accused willfully and deliberately assert a falsehood.
Good faith or lack of malice is a valid defense.26 Here, the Court finds that respondent Pascua’s
statement in his counter-affidavit in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 that he called the 16 July 1998 meeting
does not constitute a deliberate assertion of falsehood. While it was Yabut and some unidentified
ACNTS personnel who requested a dialogue with respondent Pascua, it was respondent Pascua’s
consent to their request which led to the holding of the meeting. Thus, respondent Pascua’s
statement in question is not false much less malicious. It is a good faith interpretation of events
leading to the holding of the meeting.

Regarding respondent Pascua’s allegation in his counter-affidavit in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 that

petitioner’s complaint was a mere "rehash and duplication with a slight deviation of fact" of the DECS
administrative case petitioner and Yabut filed against respondent Pascua, petitioner has not shown
why this is false. Petitioner again did not furnish the Court a copy of her and Yabut’s complaint with
the DECS.

Respondent Turla’s statement in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 that respondent Pascua called the 16 July
1998 meeting was a mere reiteration of what respondent Pascua told him. Consequently, it was
correct for public respondent to hold that since respondent Turla merely repeated what he heard
from respondent Pascua, he could not be held liable for making a false and malicious statement.

G.R. No. 144692 January 31, 2005

CELSA P. ACUÑA, petitioner,

vs.
DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON, PEDRO PASCUA and RONNIE TURLA, (Angeles City
National Trade School), respondents.

The naïve reliance of the private respondents on the foregoing circumstances in executing their
respective counter-affidavits dated 11 June 1998 negates willful and deliberate assertion of
falsehood. Perjury being a felony by dolo, there must be malice on the part of the accused.43 Willfully
means 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." It must appear that the accused knows his statement to be false or is consciously ignorant of
its truth.44

In this case, the private respondents believed in good faith that, based on the above-explained
events, their statements in their respective counter- affidavits dated 11 June 1998 are true and
correct. Good faith or lack of malice is a valid defense vis-a-vis the allegation of deliberate assertion
of falsehood in perjury cases.45

It should also be borne in mind that perjury cannot be willful where the oath is according to belief or
conviction as to its truth. Bona fide belief in the truth of a statement is an adequate defense.46 The
private respondents had consistently claimed that the 1996 GIS of the MHADC is erroneous on its
face. They have maintained all along their stand that the annual stockholders meeting of the
MHADC was held on 16 October 1996 and not on 27 November 1996. They also submitted
documentary evidence to prove that the annual stockholders’ meeting took place on 16 October
1996, and that the LDA had already communicated to the SEC the mistakes and corrections in the
1996 GIS of the MHADC.47 In addition thereto, they also submitted a letter coming from the SEC
which acknowledged the corrections therein and had noted that the same now form part of the
records of the MHADC.48

G.R. No. 168301 March 5, 2007

ANTONIO B. MONFORT III and ILDEFONSO B. MONFORT, Petitioners,

vs.
MA. ANTONIA M. SALVATIERRA, PAUL MONFORT, RAMON H. MONFORT, JACQUELINE M.
YUSAY, YVETTE M. BENEDICTO, ESTER S. MONFORT, SECRETARY OF JUSTICE and CITY
PROSECUTOR OF CADIZ CITY,

Thus, petitioner’s statement that the exchange was "simulated and fictitious x x x because they x x x
deprived [Gilberto] of his own property without any consideration at all" cannot be considered a
deliberate falsehood. It is simply his characterization of the transaction, based on the fact that
Gilberto did not receive consideration for the exchange of his land.

***********************************************

erjury is the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under oath or affirmation
administered by authority of law on a material matter.
Perjury as a Crime

As a crime, perjury is penalized under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code, which
provides:

“Art. 183. False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation. — The
penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period shall be imposed upon any person, who knowingly makes untruthful statements
and not being included in the provisions of the next preceding articles, shall testify under
oath, or make an affidavit, upon any material matter before a competent person
authorized to administer an oath in cases in which the law so requires.

“Any person who, in case of a solemn affirmation made in lieu of an oath, shall commit
any of the falsehoods mentioned in this and the three preceding articles of this section,
shall suffer the respective penalties provided therein.”

Essential Elements of the Crime of Perjury

Gathered from the said provision, the following are the essential elements of the crime
of perjury:

(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 oath.

(c) In the statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of
a falsehood.

(d) The sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made
for a legal purpose.

First Element of Perjury

The first element of perjury requires that the accused made a statement under oath or
executed an affidavit upon a material matter.

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.
For instance, Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended,
contains the requirement for a Certificate against Forum Shopping.

The Certificate against Forum Shopping can be made either by a statement under oath
in the complaint or initiatory pleading asserting a claim or relief; it may also be in a
sworn certification annexed to the complaint or initiatory pleading.

In both instances, the affiant is required to execute a statement under oath before a duly
commissioned notary public or any competent person authorized to administer oath
that: (a) he or she has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim
involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best
of his or her knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is
such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof;
and (c) if he or she should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has
been filed or is pending, he or she shall report that fact within five days therefrom to the
court wherein his or her aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

Thus, in relation to the crime of perjury, the material matter in a Certificate against
Forum Shopping is the truth of the required declarations, which is designed to guard
against litigants pursuing simultaneous remedies in different fora.

Second Element of Perjury

The second element of perjury requires that the statement or affidavit was made before
a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath.

The phrase “competent person authorized to administer an oath” means a person who
has a right to inquire into the questions presented to him upon matters under his
jurisdiction.

A lawyer, who is also a duly commissioned notary public, is a competent person

authorized to administer an oath.

Not all lawyers, however, are notaries public. But all notaries public are lawyers.

Lawyers become notaries public only when the appropriate Regional Trial Court
Executive Judge acts on their petition and issues in their favor the corresponding
notarial commissions.
Thus, a person who executes an affidavit containing a falsity upon a material matter
before a lawyer, who is also a duly commissioned notary public, may be held liable for
perjury.

Third Element of Perjury

The third element of perjury requires that, in the statement or affidavit, the accused
made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood.

Thus, a mere assertion of a false objective fact or a falsehood is not enough. The
assertion must be deliberate and willful.

“Willfully” means “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.”

Perjury cannot be willful where the oath is according to belief or conviction as to its
truth. Bona fide belief in the truth of a statement is an adequate defense.

“Deliberately” implies “meditated,” as distinguished from “inadvertent acts.” It must

appear that the accused knows his statement to be false or is consciously ignorant of its
truth.

Perjury being a felony by dolo, there must be malice on the part of the accused.

A felony is committed by dolo when the act is performed with deliberate intent.

Good faith or lack of malice is a valid defense vis-a-vis the allegation of deliberate
assertion of falsehood in perjury cases.

The basis of the third element of perjury is the phrase “knowingly making untruthful
statements” in Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code.

The word “knowingly” suggests that the assertion of falsehood must be willful and
deliberate.

Hence, there is no perjury through negligence or imprudence.

Fourth Element of Perjury

The fourth element of perjury requires that the sworn statement or affidavit containing
the falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose.

For instance, in consonance with Section 1 (a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, for offenses where a preliminary investigation is required, a criminal
action is instituted by filing a complaint with the proper officer, such as a public
prosecutor, for the purpose of conducting the requisite preliminary investigation.

That complaint, in turn, must be made under oath, in accordance with Section 3, Rule
110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides:

“Sec. 3. Complaint defined. – A complaint is a sworn written statement charging a

person with an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer, or other
public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated.”

Thus, a person who executes a criminal complaint containing a falsity upon a material
matter may be held liable for perjury.

However, in an unpublished decision (People v. Angangco, G.R. No. L-47693, October

12, 1943) it was held that the word “requires” in the phrase “in cases in which the law so
requires” (in Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code) may be given the meaning of
“authorizes.” Hence, the fourth element may be read “that the sworn statement (or
affidavit) containing the falsity is authorized by law.”

Thus, even if there is no law, requiring the statement to be made under oath, as long as
it is made for a legal purpose, it is sufficient.

Policy of the Law on Perjury

Of great importance is the policy of the law on perjury, which the Supreme Court laid
down in People v. Cainglet (G.R. Nos. L-21493-94, April 29, 1966).

In that case, the Supreme 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.

[References: Antonio B. Monfort III, et. al. v. Ma. Antonia M. Salvatierra, et. al., G.R. No.
168301, March 5, 2007, Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code, Section 5, Rule 7 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Union Bank of the Philippines and Desi Tomas v. People
of the Philippines, G.R. No. 192565, February 28, 2012, Celsa P. Acuña v. Deputy
Ombudsman for Luzon, et. al., G.R. No. 144692, January 31, 2005, Page 275 of the law
book titled, The Revised Penal Code, Criminal Law, Book Two (Articles 114-367),
Fourteenth Edition (Revised 1998) by Luis B. Reyes, citing U.S. v. Go Chanco, 23 Phil.
641, Philip S. Yu v. Hernan G. Lim, G.R. No. 182291, September 22, 2010, Article 3 of
the Revised Penal Code, Page 276 of the law book titled, The Revised Penal Code,
Criminal Law, Book Two (Articles 114-367), Fourteenth Edition (Revised 1998) by Luis
B. Reyes, Section 1 (a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Section
3, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Page 277 of the law book
titled, The Revised Penal Code, Criminal Law, Book Two (Articles 114-367), Fourteenth
Edition (Revised 1998) by Luis B. Reyes, People v. Angangco, G.R. No. L-47693,
October 12, 1943, People v. Cainglet (G.R. Nos. L-21493-94, April 29, 1966), and
Alfonso C. Choa v. People of the Philippines, et. al., G.R. No. 142011, March 14, 2003,
citing People v. Cainglet, G.R. Nos. L-21493-94, April 29, 1966]

*************

Making false or untruthful statements in a sworn statement or an affidavit does not, in itself,
result in legal implications. While Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) imposes a
penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period to
a person who makes false testimony in cases not included in Articles 180 to 182 of the said law,
as well as perjury in solemn affirmation, the following requisites must first concur in order for
criminal liability to attach: (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 the 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(Monfort III vs.
Salvatierra, 517 SCRA 447, G.R. No. 168301, March 5, 2007).

Applying the foregoing in the situation that you have presented before us, we believe that legal
implications will only arise, should your sister decide to pursue with the execution an affidavit
containing untruthful statements, if it can be clearly shown that her affidavit was executed before
a competent officer who is authorized to receive and administer oath, that she deliberately
declared that she has already filed a case against her former colleague although one is not
actually filed, and that she utilized the affidavit for a legal purpose or presented the same as
required by law. If one of the abovementioned elements is lacking, then your sister may not be
held criminally liable.

We wish to emphasize the ruling of the Supreme Court:

Ads by AdAsia
“x x x Perjury is the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under oath or affirmation
administered by authority of law on a material matter.x x x

x x x Perjury being a felony by dolo, there must be malice on the part of the accused. Willfully
means 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.” It must appear that the accused knows his statement to be false or is
consciously ignorant of its truth.” (Ibid.

Citing: Monfort III v. Salvatierra, G.R. No. 168301, March 5, 2007,