G.R. No. 93173 – 226 SCRA 438 – Criminal Law – Crimes Against Public Interest – Perjury – Perjured Statement Must Be Required By Law
In 1987, in behalf of Pine Philippines, Inc. (PPI), Honorio Saavedra, Jr., filed a verified complaint for damages against Gregorio Ramos. Saavedra, in the verification portion of said complaint swore under oath that he is the president of PPI. Later, Ramos filed a perjury case against Saavedra on the ground that Saavedra was lying under oath when he stated that he is the president of PPI (There was an intracorporate dispute at that time and the presidency of PPI was in question before the Securities and Exchange Commission). The prosecutor found probable cause against Saavedra. Saavedra is now questioning the resolution of the prosecutor.
ISSUE: Whether or not Saavedra is liable for perjury.
HELD: No. The elements of perjury 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.
There can be no probable cause against Saavedra because the fourth element is lacking in the instant case. There is no law requiring a complaint for damages to be verified. The Supreme Court said “as a rule, pleadings need not be verified unless otherwise required by the Rules of Court, and no rule requires complaints for damages to be under oath. Since the complaint filed by [Saavedra] against [Ramos] is not required to be verified, another essential element of the crime of perjury is absent, i.e., that the sworn statement containing the falsity is required by law. Consequently, [Saavedra] cannot be prosecuted on the basis of an alleged falsehood made in a verified pleading which is not mandated by law to be verified.”
