JURIS Perjury Cases

download JURIS Perjury Cases

of 65

Transcript of JURIS Perjury Cases

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    1/65

    THIRD DIVISION

    ANTONIO B. MONFORT III and

    ILDEFONSO B. MONFORT,

    Petitioners,

    -versus

    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,

    Respondents.

    G.R. No. 1!"#1

    Present:

    YNARES-SANTIAGO,

    Chairperson,

    AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,

    CAE!O, SR.,"

    C#ICO-NAZARIO, and

    NAC#URA,JJ.

    Pro$%&'ated:

    Mar(h ), *++

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    D E C I S I O N

    C#ICO-NAZARIO,J.:

    In this Petition or Re/ie01213on Certiorari%nder R%&e 4) o the 155 R%&es

    o Ci/i& Pro(ed%re, petitioners Antonio 6. Monort III and I&deonso 6. Monort

    see7 to set aside the 8e(ision dated *9 !an%ar *++)*2*3and Reso&%tion dated *;

    * On &ea/e.1 213 Rollo, pp. i&&on and

    Ra$on M. 6ato, !r., (on(%rrin'? rollo, pp. 1;

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    2/65

    Ma *++). P%no? id. at

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    3/65

    Genera& Inor$ation Sheet DGIS a((o$p&ished = the M#A8C and s%=$itted to

    the Se(%rities and E(han'e Co$$ission DSEC, I&oi&o Etension Oi(e. %rther,

    there is nothin' in the 155; GIS o the M#A8C 0hi(h states that an e&e(tion o

    the =oard o dire(tors o the M#A8C too7 p&a(e on 1; O(to=er 155;.23

    S%=seB%ent&, pri/ate respondents i&ed their oint (o%nter-aida/its dated 5

    8e(e$=er 1559 in I.S. No. 9++5 =eore the Cit Prose(%tor o CadiF. The a&&e'ed

    that the are sto(7ho&ders o re(ord o the M#A8C? that a sto(7ho&ders@ $eetin'

    o the M#A8C 0as he&d on 1; O(to=er 155; 0here the 0ere e&e(ted as =oard

    dire(tors o M#A8C? that the M#A8C@s (orporate a((o%ntant, iton%a,

    8esa=e&&e and Asso(iates D8A, 0as responsi=&e or the preparation o the

    M#A8C@s GIS? that the 8A $ade erroneo%s state$ents in the 155; GIS o

    M#A8C? that the erroneo%s state$ents reer to the date o the M#A8C@s ann%a&

    sto(7ho&ders@ $eetin' and the persons (o$posin' the M#A8C@s =oard o

    dire(tors? that the 8A had ad$itted ha/in' (o$$itted s%(h honest error? that the

    8A had re(tiied the sa$e = s%=$ittin' a &etter to the SEC inor$in' the &atter

    that the ann%a& sto(7ho&ders@ $eetin' o the M#A8C or the ear 155; 0as he&d

    on 1; O(to=er 155; and not on * No/e$=er 155;? that 0hat transpired on *

    No/e$=er 155; 0as not the ann%a& sto(7ho&ders@ $eetin' o the M#A8C =%t

    $ere& a spe(ia& $eetin' o the =oard o dire(tors thereo? and, that, the pri/ate

    respondents 0ere e&e(ted as =oard dire(tors o the M#A8C d%rin' the ann%a&

    sto(7ho&ders@ $eetin' on 1; O(to=er 155;.9293

    Pri/ate respondents th%s ar'%e that the (annot =e he&d &ia=&e or per%r

    sin(e one o the e&e$ents o per%r %nder Arti(&e 19< o the Re/ised Pena& Code is

    723 Id. at

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    4/65

    that the assertion o a&sehood $%st =e 0i&&%& and de&i=erate? that the ter$s 0i&&%&

    and de&i=erate i$p& $a&i(e and e/i& intent in assertin' a&sehood? and that this

    e&e$ent is &a(7in' in the (ase at =ar.5253

    Thereater, In/esti'atin' Prose(%tor A=raha$ E. Tion7o DIn/esti'ator

    Tion7o iss%ed a Reso&%tion dated 14 Apri& 1555 in I.S. No. 9++5 dis$issin' the

    &etter-(o$p&aint or per%r o the petitioners or &a(7 o pro=a=&e (a%se.1+21+3

    In/esti'ator Tion7o noted that the state$ents in the 155; GIS o the M#A8C are

    indeed erroneo%s. The 155; GIS stated that the sto(7ho&ders@ $eetin' and e&e(tion

    o the =oard o dire(tors too7 p&a(e on * No/e$=er 155;. I s%(h inor$ation

    0ere tr%e and (orre(t, then a((ordin' to In/esti'ator Tion7o, it 0o%&d ha/e =een

    i$possi=&e or so$e o the =oard dire(tors to =e e&e(ted as s%(h on * No/e$=er

    155; sin(e the 0ere a&read de(eased at that ti$e.112113 Moreo/er, i the 155;

    ann%a& sto(7ho&ders@ $eetin' o M#A8C 0as indeed he&d on * No/e$=er 155;

    0hi(h e&& on a Hednesda, it 0o%&d ha/e =een in(onsistent 0ith the =-&a0s o

    the M#A8C 0hi(h states that the ann%a& sto(7ho&ders@ $eetin' o the M#A8C

    sha&& =e he&d on the &ast Th%rsda o No/e$=er, 0hi(h, a((ordin' to the 155;

    (a&endar, e&& on *9 No/e$=er 155;.

    As to the $atter o 0hether or not the sto(7ho&ders $a ho&d their ann%a&

    $eetin' on a date other than that spe(iied in its =-&a0s, In/esti'ator Tion7o

    opined that s%(h is not 0ithin the pro/in(e o his oi(e to r%&e.1*21*3

    9 253 Id.10 21+3 Id. at ;1-;

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    5/65

    #e, thereater, $ade the o&&o0in' indin's: that it 0as not i$possi=&e or

    the M#A8C sto(7ho&ders to ha/e (ond%(ted their ann%a& $eetin' on 1; O(to=er

    155;? that there 0o%&d ha/e =een 0i&&%& and de&i=erate assertion o a&sehood on

    the part o the pri/ate respondents on& i no error 0as (o$$itted in the

    preparation o the 155; GIS o M#A8C? that pri/ate respondent Ra$on #.

    Monort 0as not a0are o the said errors at the ti$e he s%=s(ri=ed and s0ore to the

    (orre(tness o the 155; GIS o M#A8C as >i(e-President thereo? that %pon the

    dis(o/er o the errors, the 8A sent a &etter to the SEC pro/idin' the &atter 0ith

    the (orre(t inor$ation? that s%(h sho%&d =e (onsidered as $ere ne'&i'en(e and

    i$pr%den(e on the part o pri/ate respondent Ra$on #. Monort? and that the

    (ri$e o per%r (annot =e (o$$itted = ne'&i'en(e or i$pr%den(e. The

    dispositi/e portion o In/esti'ator Tion7o@s Reso&%tion states:

    H#EREORE, the %ndersi'ned =e&ie/es there is no pro=a=&e (a%se to

    s%pport a indin' o per%r a'ainst a&& o the respondents and this (o$p&aint is

    here= dis$issed.1

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    6/65

    re(ord (onsistin' o the noti(es o sto(7ho&ders@ $eetin' and re'istr ret%rn

    re(eipt.1;21;3 #e a&so air$ed that patent errors 0ere (o$$itted in the preparation

    o the 155; GIS o the M#A8C. Pertinent portions o the ** 8e(e$=er 1555

    Reso&%tion o Prose(%tor Ara'ona reads:

    He then r%&ed and so r%&es here, that an erroneo%s do(%$ent is in(orre(t

    and thereore not the tr%th. It (annot =e %sed as =asis to (har'e the respondents or

    Per%r, or the si$p&e reason that it is not an e/iden(e that the &ied %nder oath.In a(t, it is an e/iden(e not on& o it =ein' an in(orre(t do(%$ent =%t a&so o the

    a(t that the No/e$=er *, 155; $eetin' 0ritten in it 0as a $ista7e and that the

    dead persons &isted as e&e(ted oi(ers in that $eetin' is &i7e0ise a $ista7e. This

    e/iden(e has no pro=ati/e /a&%e to esta=&ish pri$a a(ie (ase or per%r =e(a%seo its nat%re as =ein' 0orth&ess d%e to its inherent in(redi=i&it to esta=&ish that

    No/e$=er *, 155; is the tr%e date o the Ann%a& Sto(7ho&ders@ Meetin' o the

    Monort #er$anos A'ri(%&t%ra& 8e/e&op$ent Corporation.

    In /ie0 o the ore'oin', the appea& sho%&d =e, as it is here= dis$issed. 1

    213

    Petitioners, then, appea&ed to the Se(retar o !%sti(e. indin' no re/ersi=&e

    error in Prose(%tor Ara'ona@s Reso&%tion dated ** 8e(e$=er 1555, Underse(retar

    o !%sti(e Re'is >. P%no dis$issed petitioners@ appea& in his Reso&%tion dated 11

    O(to=er *+++,192193to 0it:

    This reso&/es the appea& ro$ the reso&%tion o the Re'iona& State

    Prose(%tor, Re'ion >I, I&oi&o Cit in the a=o/e-entit&ed (ase dis$issin' the

    (o$p&aint a'ainst Ma. Antonia M. Sa&/atierra, et. a&. or per%r.

    Se(tion 5 o 8epart$ent Order No. **< dated !%ne

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    7/65

    s%(h error (o$$itted = the prose(%tor that 0o%&d %sti a re/ersa& o his

    reso&%tion, 0hi(h is in a((ord 0ith the &a0 and e/iden(e on the $atter.

    H#EREORE, pre$ises (onsidered, the appea& is here= 8ISMISSE8. 15

    2153

    Petitioners i&ed a $otion or re(onsideration o Underse(retar P%no@s

    Reso&%tion dated 11 O(to=er *+++ =%t this 0as denied in the Reso&%tion dated 1)

    A%'%st *++1 o Underse(retar o !%sti(e Man%e& A.!. Teehan7ee sin(e no ne0

    $atter 0as raised to 0arrant the re/ie0 o the sa$e,*+2*+3viz:

    A per%sa& o the $otion sho0s no ne0 $atter 0hi(h 0as not ta7en into

    (onsideration in o%r re/ie0 o the (ase. #en(e, 0e ind no (o$pe&&in' reason to

    a&ter or $odi o%r reso&%tion.

    H#EREORE, the $otion or re(onsideration is here= 8ENIE8 0ith

    ina&it.*12*13

    Petitioners appea&ed the reso&%tions o the Se(retar o !%sti(e dated 11

    O(to=er *+++ and 1) A%'%st *++1, respe(ti/e&, to the Co%rt o Appea&s. On *9

    !an%ar *++), the Co%rt o Appea&s rendered its 8e(ision air$in' the said

    reso&%tions.**2**3 It r%&ed that the Se(retar o !%sti(e did not (o$$it 'ra/e a=%se o

    dis(retion sin(e its non-indin' o pro=a=&e (a%se or per%r a'ainst pri/ate

    respondents is =ased on &a0, %rispr%den(e and e/iden(e on re(ords. It a&so he&d

    that the pri/ate respondents had s%i(ient& esta=&ished the a(t that a

    sto(7ho&ders@ $eetin' o the M#A8C a(t%a&& too7 p&a(e on 1; O(to=er 155;, and

    that the 0ere e&e(ted d%rin' the said $eetin' as =oard dire(tors. It %rther stated

    192153 Id.202*+3 Id. at

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    8/65

    that 0i&&%& and de&i=erate assertion o a&sehood, as one o the e&e$ents o per%r,

    is not present in the instant (ase.*

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    9/65

    dire(tors o the M#A8C too7 p&a(e on 1; O(to=er 155;. %rther, the intent o the

    pri/ate respondents to (o$$it a 0i&&%& and de&i=erate assertion o a&sehood is

    e/ident in the 155; GIS o the M#A8C 0hi(h does not spe(i that an e&e(tion o

    =oard dire(tors too7 p&a(e on 1; O(to=er 155;.*2*3

    Petitioners a&so a/erred that the (orre(tion o the a&&e'ed erroneo%s entries in

    the 155; GIS o M#A8C 0as $ade = the 8A, M#A8C@s (orporate

    a((o%ntant, on& ater the &apse o t0o ears ro$ the ee(%tion o the said

    do(%$ent. The ar'%ed that the sa$e 0as a %ti&e atte$pt on the part o the

    pri/ate respondents to es(ape (ri$ina& &ia=i&it sin(e: a at the ti$e the (orre(tions

    0ere $ade, the had a&read (har'ed pri/ate respondent Ra$on #. Monort 0ith

    per%r and a&sii(ation o pri/ate do(%$ent or in(&%din' in the 155; GIS o the

    M#A8C the na$es o sto(7ho&ders 0ho 0ere a&read de(eased as e&e(ted =oard

    dire(tors o M#A8C?*92*93= the a&&e'ed errors in the 155; GIS o the M#A8C,

    parti(%&ar& in the (o$position o the a&&e'ed e&e(ted =oard o dire(tors, is =e&ied

    = the 155 GIS o M#A8C i&ed = pri/ate respondent Ra$on #. Monort 0hi(h

    reiterated the na$es o the de(eased sto(7ho&ders as e&e(ted dire(tors o M#A8C?

    this is not %st one $ista7e =%t t0o $ista7es a&read? ( there 0as i&&-$oti/e on the

    part o the pri/ate respondents 0hen it sent, thro%'h 8A, a &etter to the SEC to

    (orre(t the a&&e'ed errors =e(a%se at the ti$e s%(h &etter 0as re(ei/ed = the SEC,

    the Cit Prose(%tor o CadiF had a&read iss%ed a reso&%tion in I.S. No. 99i(e-

    President o the M#A8C, he si'ned and (ertiied the sa$e %nder oath? that he 0as

    not, ho0e/er, a0are o the erroneo%s state$ents therein at the ti$e 0hen he si'ned

    it? that it 0as 8A as M#A8C@s (orporate a((o%ntant 0hi(h had so&e& prepared

    the 155; GIS o the M#A8C? that he a&0as re&ied on the a((%ra( o 8A? that

    he hasti& si'ned it sin(e, at that ti$e, the 8A representati/e 0as in a h%rr to

    =eat the dead&ine in s%=$ittin' the sa$e to the SEC? that ater =ein' inor$ed o

    the erroneo%s state$ents, the 8A sent a &etter to the SEC inor$in' the &atter o

    the $ista7es and s%pp&in' the (orre(t inor$ations therein? that the erroneo%s

    state$ents 0ere d%e to the o/ersi'ht o the 8A? and, that he ad$itted that he 0as

    ne'&i'ent in not (are%&& readin' and ana&Fin' the state$ents therein.4*24*3

    The naK/e re&ian(e o the pri/ate respondents on the ore'oin' (ir(%$stan(es

    in ee(%tin' their respe(ti/e (o%nter-aida/its dated 11 !%ne 1559 ne'ates 0i&&%&

    and de&i=erate assertion o a&sehood. Per%r =ein' a e&on = dolo, there $%st

    =e $a&i(e on the part o the a((%sed.4

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    14/65

    distin'%ished ro$ inad/ertent a(ts.J It $%st appear that the a((%sed 7no0s his

    state$ent to =e a&se or is (ons(io%s& i'norant o its tr%th.442443

    In this (ase, the pri/ate respondents =e&ie/ed in 'ood aith that, =ased on the

    a=o/e-ep&ained e/ents, their state$ents in their respe(ti/e (o%nter- aida/its

    dated 11 !%ne 1559 are tr%e and (orre(t. Good aith or &a(7 o $a&i(e is a /a&id

    deense vis-a-vis the a&&e'ation o de&i=erate assertion o a&sehood in per%r

    (ases.4)24)3

    It sho%&d a&so =e =orne in $ind that per%r (annot =e 0i&&%& 0here the oath

    is a((ordin' to =e&ie or (on/i(tion as to its tr%th. %ona fide=e&ie in the tr%th o a

    state$ent is an adeB%ate deense.4;24;3 The pri/ate respondents had (onsistent&

    (&ai$ed that the 155; GIS o the M#A8C is erroneo%s on its a(e. The ha/e

    $aintained a&& a&on' their stand that the ann%a& sto(7ho&ders $eetin' o the

    M#A8C 0as he&d on 1; O(to=er 155; and not on * No/e$=er 155;. The a&so

    s%=$itted do(%$entar e/iden(e to pro/e that the ann%a& sto(7ho&ders@ $eetin'

    too7 p&a(e on 1; O(to=er 155;, and that the 8A had a&read (o$$%ni(ated to the

    SEC the $ista7es and (orre(tions in the 155; GIS o the M#A8C.4243 In addition

    thereto, the a&so s%=$itted a &etter (o$in' ro$ the SEC 0hi(h a(7no0&ed'ed the

    (orre(tions therein and had noted that the sa$e no0 or$ part o the re(ords o the

    M#A8C.492493

    %rther, the Se(retar o !%sti(e had o%nd that the 155; GIS o the

    M#A8C is patent& erroneo%s. It (on(&%ded that the sa$e is 0orth&ess and has no

    44 2443 Id. at )1

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    15/65

    pro=ati/e /a&%e in e/iden(e =e(a%se it does not esta=&ish the a(t that the tr%e date

    o the ann%a& sto(7ho&ders@ $eetin' or the ear 155; too7 p&a(e on * No/e$=er

    155;. This indin' 0as s%stained = the Co%rt o Appea&s in its 8e(ision dated *9

    !an%ar *++).

    As a 'enera& r%&e, this Co%rt 0i&& not interere in the (ond%(t o pre&i$inar

    in/esti'ations and &ea/e to the in/esti'atin' prose(%tor s%i(ient &atit%de o

    dis(retion in the eer(ise o deter$ination o 0hat (onstit%tes s%i(ient e/iden(e

    as 0i&& esta=&ish pro=a=&e (a%se or the i&in' o an inor$ation a'ainst an

    oender.452453 As an e(eption, ho0e/er, this Co%rt $a inB%ire into the

    deter$ination o pro=a=&e (a%se d%rin' the pre&i$inar in/esti'ation i, =ased on

    the re(ords, the prose(%tor (o$$itted 'ra/e a=%se o dis(retion. )+2)+3 In the (ase at

    =ar, the Cit Prose(%tor o CadiF, the Re'iona& State Prose(%tor or Re'ion >I, and

    the Se(retar o !%sti(e had (onsistent& r%&ed that there is no pro=a=&e (a%se to

    indi(t the pri/ate respondents or the (ri$e o per%r. He ind no 'ra/e a=%se o

    dis(retion or $aniest error on their part (onsiderin' the a(t that their non-indin'

    o pro=a=&e (a%se is s%pported = the e/iden(e on re(ord. It is 0e&& to state, too,

    that the reso&%tion o the Se(retar o !%sti(e de(&arin' the a=sen(e or eisten(e o

    a pro=a=&e (a%se and air$ed = the Co%rt o Appea&s is a((orded hi'h respe(t

    and 'enera&& (on(&%si/e on this Co%rt.)12)13 He ind no e(eptiona& reasons to

    de/iate ro$ this prin(ip&e.

    The prono%n(e$ents o this Co%rt in G.R. No. 1)*)4* and No. 1))4*)*2)*3

    do not a%to$ati(a&& i$p& that there is s%i(ient e/iden(e or pro=a=&e (a%se to

    49 2453 Punzalan v. $ela Pena, G.R. No. 1)9)4

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    16/65

    indi(t the pri/ate respondents or the (ri$e o per%r. It sho%&d =e %nders(ored

    that in G.R. No. 1)*)4* and No. 1))4*, there is no indin' 0ith re'ard to the

    (orre(t date o the 155; ann%a& sto(7ho&ders@ $eetin' and the e&e(tion o the =oard

    o dire(tors as to =ind this Co%rt in the Petition at =ar.

    $HEREFORE, the instant petition is here= DENIED. The 8e(ision and

    Reso&%tion o the Co%rt o Appea&s in CA-G.R. SP No. ;1+5 dated *9 !an%ar

    *++) and *; Ma *++), respe(ti/e&, are here= AFFIRMED. Costs a'ainst

    petitioners.

    SO ORDERED.

    MINITA V. CHICO%NAZARIO

    Asso(iate !%sti(e

    HE CONCUR:

    CONSUELO YNARES%SANTIAGO

    Asso(iate !%sti(e

    Chairperson

    MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA%MARTINEZ

    Asso(iate !%sti(e

    ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.

    Asso(iate !%sti(e

    ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA

    Asso(iate !%sti(e

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    17/65

    A T T E S T A T I O N

    I attest that the (on(&%sions in the a=o/e 8e(ision 0ere rea(hed in

    (ons%&tation =eore the (ase 0as assi'ned to the 0riter o the opinion o the

    Co%rt@s 8i/ision.

    CONSUELO YNARES%

    SANTIAGO

    Asso(iate !%sti(e

    Chairperson, Third 8i/ision

    C E R T I I C A T I O N

    P%rs%ant to Arti(&e >III, Se(tion 1< o the Constit%tion, and the 8i/ision

    Chair$an@s Attestation, it is here= (ertiied that the (on(&%sions in the a=o/e

    8e(ision 0ere rea(hed in (ons%&tation =eore the (ase 0as assi'ned to the 0riter o

    the opinion o the Co%rt@s 8i/ision.

    REYNATO S. PUNO

    Chie !%sti(e

    Supreme Court +-)i(rary

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    18/65

    SECOND DIVISION

    CRISTE B. VILLANUEVA, G.R. No. 1&1!'

    Petitioner,

    Present:

    PUNO,J.,C"airman,

    - versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,

    CAE!O, SR.,TINGA, and

    C#ICO-NAZARIO,"JJ.

    THE HON. SECRETARY OF

    JUSTICE and HORST%(ESSLER Pro$%&'ated:

    VON SPRENGEISEN,

    Respondents. No/e$=er 19, *++)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    D E C I S I O N

    CALLEJO, SR., J.)

    Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorariof the Decision[1]

    of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. S !o. "#$$$ %is&issin' the

    petition for certiorariassailin' the fin%in' of the Secretar of ustice that no

    http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn1http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn2http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn2http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn1
  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    19/65

    pro*a*le cause e+ists a'ainst private respon%ent ,orst-essler on

    Spren'eisen for per/ur.

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    20/65

    The Antecedents

    0n April 2 1$$#2 the Refractories Corporation of the hilippines

    (RC) file% a protest *efore the Special Co&&ittee on Anti-Du&pin' of the

    Depart&ent of 3inance a'ainst certain i&portations of ,a&*ur' 4ra%in'

    Corporation (,4C)2 a corporation %ul or'ani5e% an% e+istin' un%er the

    laws of the hilippines. 4he &atter involve% 161.7"7 tons of &a'nesite-

    *ase% refractor *ric8s fro& Ger&an. [] 4he case was %oc8ete% as Anti-

    Du&pin' Case !o. 9-$:.

    4he protest was referre% to the Bureau of 9&port Services (B9S) of

    the Depart&ent of 4ra%e an% 9n%ustr2 to %eter&ine if there was a prima

    faciecase for violation of Repu*lic Act (R.A.) !o. ":; 1277 per &etric ton as the nor&al

    value of the i&porte% 'oo%s. [

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    21/65

    4he ,4C receive% a cop of the sai% report on 3e*ruar 1;2 1$$".

    ,owever2 *efore it coul% respon%2 the chair&an of the 4ariff Co&&ission

    pro%%e% the parties to settle the &atter a&ica*l. A conference ensue%

    *etween RC Senior ice resi%ent an% Assistant General >ana'er Criste

    illanueva an% esus Bor'onia2 on the one han%2 an% ,4C resi%ent an%

    General >ana'er ,orst-essler on Spren'eisen an% Sales >ana'er

    Dennis Gon5ales2 on the other. Durin' the conference2 the parties a'ree%

    that the refractor *ric8s were i&porte% * the ,4C at a price less than its

    nor&al value of D> 12772 an% that such i&portation was li8el to in/ure the

    local in%ustr. 4he parties also a'ree% to settle the case to avoi% e+penses

    an% protracte% liti'ation. ,4C was re?uire% to refor& its price

    polic@structure of its i&portation an% sale of refractor *ric8s fro&

    Ger&an to confor& to the provisions of R.A. !o. ":;< an% its rules an%

    re'ulations. esus Bor'onio thereafter prepare% an% si'ne% a co&pro&ise

    a'ree&ent containin' the ter&s a'ree% upon which illanueva an%

    Bor'onia si'ne%.[;] Bienveni%o 3lores2 an 0ffice Cler8 of RC2 %elivere%

    the a'ree&ent to ,4C at the $th 3loor of Ra&on >a'sasa Center

    Buil%in'2 1#:7 Ro+as Boulevar%2 >anila * on Spren'eisens approval. [6]

    http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn5http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn6http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn5http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn6
  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    22/65

    ,owever2 on Spren'eisen %i% not si'n the a'ree&ent. Bor'onia

    revise% the a'ree&ent * insertin' the phrase *ase% on the fin%in's of the

    B9S in para'raph 1 thereof. illanueva an% Bor'onia si'ne% the

    a'ree&ent an% ha% the sa&e %elivere% to the office of ,4C on April 2

    1$$" * =ino >. Gutierre52 a technical assistant of RC. Gon5ales

    receive% the a'ree&ent an% %elivere% the sa&e to on Spren'eisen. After

    7 &inutes2 Gon5ales returne%2 with the a'ree&ent alrea% si'ne% * on

    Spren'eisen. [#] Gon5ales2 who ha% also si'ne%2 then 'ave it to Gutierre5.

    0n the sa&e %a2 !otar u*lic enai%a . De uEi'a notari5e% the

    a'ree&ent.["] Gon5ales %elivere% a cop of the notari5e% A'ree&ent to

    ,4C.[:]

    RC su*&itte% the co&pro&ise a'ree&ent to the 4ariff Co&&ission.

    Durin' the >a $2 1$$" hearin' *efore the Co&&ission for the approval of

    the a'ree&ent2 a representative of ,4C appeare%. ,e offere% no o*/ection

    to the A'ree&ent. 4he Co&&ission su*&itte% its report to the Special

    Co&&ittee which ren%ere% a %ecision %eclarin' that2 *ase% on the fin%in's

    of the B9S2 the nor&al value of the i&porte% refractor *ric8s was D> 1277

    per &etric ton. ,4C receive% a cop of the %ecision on >arch ;2 1$$:.

    !either RC nor ,4C appeale% the %ecision to the Court of 4a+ Appeals.

    http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn7http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn8http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn9http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn7http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn8http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn9
  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    23/65

    9n the &eanti&e2 ,4C i&porte% refractor *ric8s fro& Ger&an anew

    an% note% that the nor&al value of the sai% i&portation un%er the %ecision

    of the Special Co&&ittee *ase% on the B9S report was D> 1277 per &etric

    ton. 0n ul :2 1$$:2 the ,4C file% an Fr'ent >otion to Set Asi%e an%@or

    acate u%'&ent with the Special Co&&ittee on Anti-Du&pin'2 prain'

    that such %ecision *e %eclare% null an% voi% on the followin' 'roun%s

    1. 4,H 3RAFD ,AD BHH! C0>>944HD BI 4,H R04HS4A!4 DFR9!G

    4,H !HG049A490! 30R 4,H RHARA490! 03 4,H C0>R0>9SH

    AGRHH>H!4.

    . 4,A4 9!SHR490!S A!D@0R SFBS494F490! 03 4,H 3AC4S !04

    AGRHHD F0! JAS DH=9BHRA4H=I A!D SFRRH49490FS=I >ADH BI

    4,H R04HS4A!4 9! 4,H C0>R0>9SH AGRHH>H!4 J94,0F4 4,H

    !0J=HDGH A!D C0!SH!4 03 4,H R04HS4HH.[$]

    4he &otion was verifie% * on Spren'eisen. 4he ,4C averre%

    therein that illanueva violate% Article 1" of the Revise% enal Co%e

    when he surreptitiousl inserte% the phrase *ase% on the fin%in's of the

    B9S in the a'ree&ent without the 8nowle%'e an% consent of on

    Spren'eisen an% %espite their a'ree&ent to put *ehin% the& the fin%in's of

    the B9S. Appen%e% to the &otion was an Affi%avit of >erit e+ecute% * on

    http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn10http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn10
  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    24/65

    Spren'eisen in which he alle'e%2 inter alia2 that so&eti&e in 3e*ruar

    1$$"2 the B9S ca&e out with its Report %eclarin' that the nor&al value of

    the &a'nesite-*ase% refractor *ric8s was D> 1277 per &etric tonK *efore

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    25/65

    ,4C coul% respon% to the report2 illanueva invite% hi& to a

    conference for the purpose of fin%in' the *est solution to the pen%in' case

    *efore the Co&&issionK he an% Gon5ales atten%e% the &eetin' %urin'

    which it was a'ree%2 * wa of a co&pro&ise2 that the parties will accept

    the a&ount of D> 12767 per &etric ton as the nor&al value for all

    &a'nesite-*ase% refractor *ric8s fro& Ger&anK when he receive% the

    %raft of the co&pro&ise a'ree&ent prepare% * illanueva2 he approve%

    the sa&eK su*se?uentl2 illanueva trans&itte% a co&pro&ise a'ree&ent

    alrea% si'ne% * hi& to on Spren'eisen for his review2 approval an%

    si'natureK *elievin' that the co&pro&ise a'ree&ent repro%uce% the

    contents of the first co&pro&ise a'ree&ent2 he si'ne% the secon%

    a'ree&ent without rea%in' itK when he receive%2 on >arch ;2 1$$:2 a cop

    of the %ecision of the 4ariff Co&&ission *ase% on the co&pro&ise

    a'ree&ent of the parties wherein the co&&ittee a%opte% the fin%in's an%

    reco&&en%ations of the B9S (that the nor&al value of the ship&ent was

    D> 1277 per &etric ton)2 he was shoc8e% *ecause he never a'ree% to the

    use of such fin%in's for the refor&ation of its price policiesK there was2 in

    fact2 an a'ree&ent *etween hi& an% illanueva to put *ehin% the& the

    fin%in's of the B9SK he calle% up illanueva at his office *ut faile% to contact

    hi& %espite several atte&ptsK suspectin' that so&ethin' a&iss happene%2

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    26/65

    he ha% the %raft of the first co&pro&ise a'ree&ent retrieve% *ut his

    secretar faile% to locate the sa&eK it was onl so&eti&e later that his

    secretar foun% the fol%er-file containin' the %raft an% was appalle% to

    %iscover that illanueva ha% su*stantiall altere% the first %raft of the

    co&pro&ise a'ree&entK this &a%e hi& conclu%e an% confir& his suspicion

    that illanueva2 thru %eceit an% frau%2 in%uce% hi& to si'n the co&pro&ise

    a'ree&ent to the pre/u%ice of the ,4C. [17]

    4he RC oppose% the &otion. But2 in a parallel &ove2 illanueva2 in

    his capacit as Senior ice resi%ent an% Assistant General >ana'er of

    RC2 file% a cri&inal co&plaint for per/ur a'ainst on Spren'eisen in the

    0ffice of the Cit rosecutor of >anila. Appen%e% thereto was a co&plaint-

    affi%avit e+ecute% * illanueva wherein he %eclare%2 inter alia2 that on

    Spren'eisen &a%e the followin' false state&ents in the Fr'ent >otion2

    thus

    a. [Co&plainant] was the one who calle% up his office2 invitin' hi& to a&eetin' for the purpose of fin%in' the *est an% &ost e?uita*le solution to the

    case (p.

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    27/65

    c. 4he ori'inal version of the Co&pro&ise A'ree&ent sent to hi& was &erel

    a %raft (p. otion)K an%

    e. [Co&plainant] was the one who surreptitiousl inserte% the aforesai% phrase

    (p. erit

    a. [Co&plainant] invite% hi& to a conference for the purpose of fin%in' the *est

    solution to the caseK

    *. [Co&plainant an% he] a'ree% to put *ehin% [the&] the fin%in's an%

    reco&&en%ation of the B9S su*&itte% to the Secretar of 3inanceK

    c. Je a'ree% to the a&ount of D> 12767@ton as the nor&al value for all

    &a'nesite-*ase% refractor *ric8s fro& Ger&anK

    %. 4he ori'inal version of the Co&pro&ise A'ree&ent sent to hi& was &erel a

    %raftK an%

    e. 4hrou'h %eceit an% frau%2 [co&plainant] in%uce% [respon%ent] to si'n the

    final Co&pro&ise A'ree&ent.[1]

    http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn12http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn13http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn12http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn13
  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    28/65

    9n his Counter-Affi%avit2 on Spren'eisen averre% that whoever

    calle% the other for a conference was not a &aterial &atter. Since the first

    %raft of the Co&pro&ise A'ree&ent trans&itte% to hi& was * fa+2 he

    as8e% the co&plainant to sen% to hi& the har% cop of the A'ree&ent for

    his si'nature. ,e further narrate% that when he receive% the har% cop of

    the co&pro&ise a'ree&ent2 he %i% not *other to review since he assu&e%

    that it containe% the sa&e provisions in the fa+e% cop. ,e %i% not su''est

    that the phrase *ase% on the fin%in's of the B9S *e inserte% in the har%

    cop of the a'ree&ent *ecause he an% illanueva were at o%%s on the B9S

    fin%in' the nor&al price of the 'oo%s was D> 1277 per &etric ton. ,e

    insiste% that it woul% have *een senseless of hi& to a'ree to such

    insertionK as such2 he %i% not &a8e an willful an% %eli*erate assertion of

    an falsehoo% as to an &aterial fact. [1

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    29/65

    cause for per/ur a'ainst the private respon%ent for alle'in' in his Affi%avit

    of >erit

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    30/65

    that he was in%uce% to si'n the co&pro&ise a'ree&ent throu'h frau%

    an% %eceit. Accor%in' to the Secon% Assistant Cit rosecutor2 the

    alle'ation of the private respon%ent thru %eceit an% frau% to si'n the final

    Co&pro&ise A'ree&ent was a %eli*erate assertion of a falsehoo%2

    %esi'ne% as it was &erel to 'ive the B9S the i&pression that private

    respon%ent was &isle% into a'reein' to the co&pro&ise a'ree&ent. She

    further opine% that the alle'ation was per/urious2 consi%erin' that the

    private respon%ent ha% sufficient ti&e to pass upon the Co&pro&ise

    A'ree&ent an% coul% have availe% the services of le'al &in%s who coul%

    review the ter&s an% con%itions thereof *efore si'nin' the sa&eK [1;]hence2

    she reco&&en%e% the reversal of rosecutor Supnets resolution an% the

    filin' of the infor&ation. 4he Cit rosecutor approve% the

    reco&&en%ation of the Secon% Assistant Cit rosecutor. Accor%in'l2 an

    9nfor&ation for per/ur was file% a'ainst the private respon%ent with the

    >etropolitan 4rial Court of >anila.

    4he private respon%ent appeale% the resolution to the Secretar of

    ustice2 who reverse% the resolution of the Cit rosecutor on Septe&*er

    72 77. Accor%in' to the ustice Secretar2 the co&plainant faile% to

    esta*lish the &aterialit of the alle'e% false assertions an% that the sai%

    http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn15http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn15
  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    31/65

    assertions were willful an% %eli*erate. >oreover2 the alle'ations in the

    Affi%avit of >erit are not alto'ether false since the intention of the parties in

    e+ecutin' the co&pro&ise a'ree&ent was precisel to put *ehin% the

    rulin' of the B9S2 %espite which the co&plainant inserte% the con%ition that

    the parties woul% *e *oun% * such fin%in's an% reco&&en%ations.[16] 4he

    %ecretal portion of the resolution rea%s

    J,HRH30RH2 the appeale% resolution of the Cit rosecutor of >anila

    is here* RHHRSHD. 4he Cit rosecutor is %irecte% to with%raw the

    infor&ation for per/ur a'ainst respon%ent ,orst-essler von Spren'eisen an% to

    report the action ta8en within ten (17) %as fro& receipt hereof.

    S0 0RDHRHD.[1#]

    illanueva then file% a petition for certiorariwith the CA assailin' the

    resolution of the ustice Secretar2 alle'in' therein that 'rave a*use of

    %iscretion2 a&ountin' to e+cess or lac8 of /uris%iction2 was co&&itte% in

    issuin' the sai% resolution.[1"] 4he private respon%ent2 for his part2 sou'ht

    the %is&issal of the petition alle'in' that2 as foun% * the ustice Secretar2

    there was no pro*a*le cause a'ainst hi& for per/ur.[1:]

    http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn16http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn17http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn17http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn18http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn19http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn16http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn17http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn18http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn19
  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    32/65

    0n 3e*ruar 1 12767 was not &entione% in

    the first co&pro&ise a'ree&ent an% that2 un%er such a'ree&ent2 the ,4C

    o*li'e% itself to refor&

    http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn20http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn20
  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    33/65

    its pricin' polic an% structure with respect to refractor pro%ucts

    *ein' i&porte% to an% sol% in the hilippines in accor%ance with the

    provisions of R.A. !o. ":;< an% its i&ple&entin' rules an% re?uire&ents.

    4he CA e&phasi5e% that it was incline% to *elieve that there was no

    &eetin' of the &in%s of the parties when the petitioner inserte% the phrase

    *ase% on the fin%in's of the B9S in the revise% co&pro&ise a'ree&entK

    hence2 there coul% not have *een per/ur when the private respon%ent

    e+ecute% the Affi%avit of >erit an% the Fr'ent >otion to Set Asi%e an%@or

    acate u%'&ent. 4he CA also a'ree% with the fin%in's of the Secretar of

    ustice that the insertion of the con%ition in the co&pro&ise a'ree&ent that

    the parties woul% *e *oun% * the B9S fin%in's an% reco&&en%ation 'ave

    the private respon%ent reason to *elieve that he was %eceive% * the

    petitioner into si'nin' the A'ree&entK as such2 the private respon%ents

    alle'ation in his Affi%avit of >erit2 that he was in%uce% to si'nin' the

    Co&pro&ise A'ree&ent throu'h frau% an% %eceit2 was not alto'ether

    false. Conse?uentl2 the CA rule%2 the private respon%ent %i% not &a8e

    an willful an% %eli*erate assertion of a falsehoo%. [7] 4he appellate court

    confor&e% to the %is?uisitions of the Secretar of ustice in the assaile%

    resolution an% conclu%e% that the private respon%ent %i% not2 in the Affi%avit

    of >erit2 &a8e a willful an% %eli*erate assertion of a falsehoo%. [1]

    http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn21http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn22http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn21http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn22
  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    34/65

    A''rieve%2 the petitioner file% a petition for review on certiorariwith

    this Court a'ainst private respon%ent on Spren'eisen an% the Secretar

    of ustice2 insistin' that the CA co&&itte% 'rave a*use of %iscretion

    a&ountin' to e+cess or lac8 of /uris%iction in %is&issin' the petition an%

    affir&in' the assaile% resolution.

    4he petitioner &aintains that2 %urin' the preli&inar investi'ation2 he

    a%%uce% su*stantial evi%ence to prove pro*a*le cause for per/ur a'ainst

    the private respon%ent. ,e &aintains that pro*a*le cause %oes not &ean

    actual an% positive causesK nor %oes it i&port a*solute certaint. 9t is

    &erel *ase% on opinion an% reasona*le *elief. 9t is enou'h that it is

    *elieve% that the act or o&ission co&plaine% of constitutes the offense

    char'e%. ,e avers that2 contrar to the clai& of the private respon%ent in

    his Affi%avit of >erit2 the &eetin' *etween hi& an% esus Bor'onio2 on the

    one han%2 an% the private respon%ent an% ,4C Sales >ana'er Dennis

    Gon5ales2 on the other2 was arran'e% * the latter an% not * hi&. As

    'leane% fro& the %raft an% final copies of the co&pro&ise a'ree&ent2 the

    parties &a%e e+press reference to theprima facie fin%in's of the B9S that

    the actual e+port price of ,4C was *elow the fair &ar8et value. B

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    35/65

    a'reein' that such fin%in's of the B9S *e inclu%e% in the Co&pro&ise

    A'ree&ent2 the sai% private respon%ent i&plie%l a'ree% to such fin%in's

    as *asis of the price for which ,4C woul% sell the Ger&an-&a%e

    &a'nesite-*ase% refractor *ric8s in the hilippines. 4he petitioner avers

    that the fact that the a&ount of D> 12767 per &etric ton was not specificall

    &entione% in the co&pro&ise a'ree&ent was of no i&portance2

    consi%erin' the parties acceptance of such fin%in's is *ase% on R.A. !o.

    ":;oreover2 the Fr'ent >otion to Set Asi%e an%@or acate u%'&ent si'ne%

    * the private respon%ent was file% &ore than 16 &onths fro& the

    e+ecution of the co&pro&ise a'ree&ent an% after four &onths fro& the

    4ariff Co&&issions approval thereof.

    4he petitioner ar'ues that it is incre%i*le that %urin' the interregnum

    of 1$ &onths2 the private respon%ent faile% to %iscover the

    revisions@insertions in the final %raft of the co&pro&ise a'ree&ent.

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    36/65

    Consi%erin' the pre&ises2 the petitioner su*&its2 the private respon%ents

    filin' of the Fr'ent >otion for an% in *ehalf of ,4C was &erel an

    afterthou'ht2 to ena*le the latter to escape co&pliance with the ter&s an%

    con%itions of the A'ree&ent.

    4he petitioner further insists that the insertion of the conteste%

    phrase in the final %raft of the co&pro&ise a'ree&ent was necessar

    althou'h it &a not *e in the *est interest of ,4C. ,e posits that the

    falsehoo%s &a%e * the private respon%ent in his Fr'ent >otion an%

    Affi%avit of >erit were &aterial to the procee%in's in the Anti-Du&pin'

    0ffice of the 4ariff Co&&ission *ecause these were use% to set asi%e the

    co&pro&ise a'ree&ent e+ecute% * the parties.

    9n his Co&&ent on the petition2 the private respon%ent avers that the

    issues raise% * the petitioner are factual2 hence2 i&proper in a petition for

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    37/65

    review on certiorariun%er Rule ;6 of the Rules of Court. 4he %eter&ination

    of the e+istence of a pro*a*le cause is pri&aril an a%&inistrative sanction

    of the Secretar of ustice. ,e insists that the fin%in's of the ustice

    Secretar shoul% *e accor%e% 'reat respect2 especiall since the sa&e

    were uphel% * the CA. ,e asserts that the petitioner faile% to esta*lish in

    the CA an% in this Court that the ustice Secretar co&&itte% a 'rave

    a*use of %iscretion a&ountin' to e+cess or lac8 of /uris%iction in her

    resolution.

    4he petition has no &erit.

    4he pivotal issue in this case is factual L whether or not2 *ase% on the

    recor%s2 there was pro*a*le cause for the private respon%ents in%ict&ent

    for per/ur.

    Rule ;6 of the Rules of Court provi%es that onl ?uestions of fact &a

    *e raise% in a petition for review on certiorari. 3in%in's of facts of a ?uasi-

    /u%icial a'enc2 as affir&e% * the CA2 are 'enerall conclusive on the

    Court2 unless co'ent facts an% circu&stances of such a nature warrantin'

    the &o%ification or reversal of the assaile% %ecision were i'nore%2

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    38/65

    &isun%erstoo% or &isinterprete%. 4hus2 the Court &a %elve into an%

    resolve factual issues in e+ceptional cases. 4he petitioner has faile% to

    esta*lish that an such circu&stance is present in the case at *ar. []

    http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn23http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn23
  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    39/65

    4he Court fin%s that the pu*lic respon%ent %i% not co&&it an 'rave

    a*use of %iscretion a&ountin' to e+cess or lac8 of /uris%iction in issuin' the

    assaile% resolution2 an% that the CA %i% not co&&it an reversi*le error in

    its assaile% %ecision an% resolution. 9f at all the pu*lic respon%ent erre% in

    issuin' the assaile% resolution2 such is &erel an error in the e+ercise of

    /uris%iction2 reversi*le * a petition for review un%er Rule ;< of the Rules of

    Court especiall so where2 as in this case2 the issues *efore the CA were

    factual an% not le'al. 4he a*sence or e+istence of pro*a*le cause in a

    'iven case involves a cali*ration an% a ree+a&ination of the evi%ence

    a%%uce% * the parties *efore the 0ffice of the Cit rosecutor of >anila

    an% the pro*ative wei'ht thereof. 4he CA thus rule% correctl when it

    %is&isse% the petition *efore it.

    ro*a*le cause2 for purposes of filin' a cri&inal infor&ation2 has

    *een %efine% as such facts as are sufficient to en'en%er a well-foun%e%

    *elief that a cri&e has *een co&&itte% an% that the private respon%ent is

    pro*a*l 'uilt thereof. 9t is such a state of facts in the &in% of the

    prosecutor as woul% lea% a person of or%inar caution an% pru%ence to

    *elieve or entertain an honest or stron' suspicion that a thin' is so. 4he

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    40/65

    ter& %oes not &ean actual or positive causeK nor %oes it i&port a*solute

    certaint. 9t is &erel *ase% on opinion an% reasona*le *elief. 4hus2 a

    fin%in' of pro*a*le cause %oes not re?uire an in?uir into whether there is

    sufficient evi%ence to procure a conviction. 9t is enou'h that it is *elieve%

    that the act or o&ission co&plaine% of constitutes the offense char'e%.

    recisel2 there is a trial for the reception of evi%ence of the prosecution in

    support of the char'e.[

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    41/65

    Art. 1:

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    42/65

    er/ur is the willful an% corrupt assertion of a falsehoo% un%er oath

    or affir&ation a%&inistere% * authorit of law on a &aterial &atter. [$] 4he

    ele&ents of the felon are

    (a) 4hat the accuse% &a%e a state&ent un%er oath or e+ecute% an

    affi%avit upon a &aterial &atter.

    (*) 4hat the state&ent or affi%avit was &a%e *efore a co&petent

    officer2 authori5e% to receive an% a%&inister oath.

    (c) 4hat in that state&ent or affi%avit2 the accuse% &a%e a willful an%

    %eli*erate assertion of a falsehoo%.

    (%) 4hat the sworn state&ent or affi%avit containin' the falsit is

    re?uire% * law or &a%e for a le'al purpose. [

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    43/65

    ina%vertent acts.[

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    44/65

    A conviction for per/ur cannot *e sustaine% &erel upon the

    contra%ictor sworn state&ents of the accuse%. 4he prosecution &ust

    prove which of the two state&ents is false an% &ust show the state&ent to

    *e false * other evi%ence than the contra%ictin' state&ent.[

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    45/65

    wei'he% in ter&s of potentialit rather than pro*a*ilit. [;7] 4he prosecution

    nee% not prove that the false testi&on actuall influence% the

    Co&&ission.[;1]

    4he private respon%ent %i% err when he %eclare%2 in the &otion of the

    ,4C an% his affi%avit2 that it was the petitioner who invite% hi& to a

    http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn41http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn42http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn41http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn42
  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    46/65

    conference. 4he truth of the &atter is that it was Gon5ales who %i% so.

    !onetheless2 the issue of who calle% for a conference is of de minimis

    i&portance *ecause2 after all2 the parties a'ree% to &eet after havin' *een

    pro%%e% * the Chair&an of the Co&&ission to settle the case instea% of

    'oin' throu'h the tri*ulations an% e+penses of a protracte% liti'ation. !o

    a%verse inference (relate% to the &erits of their respective contention in this

    case) can *e ascri*e% as to whoever calle% the conference. After all2

    parties are even ur'e% to settle cases a&ica*l.

    Besi%es2 as correctl %eclare% * the Secon% Assistant Cit

    rosecutor in her resolution

    4he alle'ation that it was co&plainant who invite% respon%ent to the

    &eetin' &a not *e a %eli*erate lie. Respon%ent &a not have 8nown who

    arran'e% the &eetin'2 *ut as he was a*le to tal8 to co&plainant2 he presu&e%

    that it was co&plainant who e+ten%e% the invitation. >oreover2 the i%entit of the

    one who initiate% the &eetin' is not &aterial consi%erin' that there was a

    &eetin' of the &in%s of the arties.[;]

    4he Court also a'rees with the contention of the private respon%ent

    that the cop of the first a'ree&ent trans&itte% to hi& was a fa+ cop of the

    %raft2 an% that2 contrar to the alle'ations of the private respon%ent2 such

    http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn43http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn43
  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    47/65

    a'ree&ent was prepare% * Bor'onia an% not * the petitioner. As

    'leane% fro& pa'e two of the a'ree&ent2 the particulars of the resi%ence

    certificates of the petitioner an% the private respon%ent were not

    tpewritten2 hence2 cannot as et *e notari5e%. As clai&e% * the private

    respon%ent2 a cop was trans&itte% to hi& for his personal review2 an% if

    he foun% it to *e in or%er2 the petitioner an% Bor'onia woul% prepare an%

    si'n the a'ree&ent an% 'ive it *ac8 to hi& for review an% si'nature2 with

    the particulars of his co&&unit ta+ certificate in%icate% in the final cop.

    Fn%enia*l2 the i%entit of the person who prepare% or cause% to

    prepare the co&pro&ise a'ree&ent su*se?uentl si'ne% * the petitioner

    an% the private respon%ent was of pri&e i&portance because only such

    person should be charged for perjury. 4he private respon%ent erroneousl

    state% in his Affi%avit of >erit an% Fr'ent >otion that it was the petitioner

    who prepare% the a'ree&ent that was si'ne% * the parties. 9t turne% out

    that it was Bor'onia who prepare% the first an% the secon% copies.

    ,owever2 the private respon%ent cannot *e hel% lia*le for per/ur since it

    was Bor'onia who prepare% the a'ree&ent an% not the petitioner. 4he

    Court a'rees with the followin' contention of the private respon%ent in his

    counter-affi%avit

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    48/65

    ;.# Jhile co&plainant clai&s that it was not he *ut >r. Bor'onia who &a%e the

    insertions2 there is no %ou*t that2 in%ee%2 the insertions were &a%e into the

    %ocu&ent. Since co&plainant is the si'nator to the Co&pro&ise

    A'ree&ent2 it is *ut natural for one to presu&e that he ha% &a%e theinsertions. At the sa&e ti&e2 9 can not *e e+pecte% to 8now that it was >r.

    Bor'onia2 as clai&e% * co&plainant2 who &a%e such insertions.[;ana'e&ent

    9nfor&ation Group of RC2 whereas the petitioner was no less than its

    Senior ice resi%ent an% Assistant General >ana'er2 Bor'onias

    superior. Fnless an% until approve% * the petitioner2 an a'ree&ent

    prepare% * Bor'onia was &erel a piece of paper2 *arren of an le'al

    effect. 9n this case2 the co&pro&ise a'ree&ent prepare% * Bor'onia ha%

    the petitioners

    http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn44http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn44
  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    49/65

    imprimatur. Bor'onia was &erel a witness to the a'ree&ent. 3or all

    le'al intents an% purposes2 the petitioner ha% the co&pro&ise a'ree&ent

    prepare% un%er his supervision an% control. 9t cannot thus *e conclu%e%

    that the private respon%ent &a%e a %eli*erate falsehoo% when he alle'e%

    that the a'ree&ent was prepare% * the petitioner.

    4he Court is not persua%e% * the petitioners clai& that2 %urin' the

    conference2 he an% the private respon%ent a'ree% that2 *ase% on the B9S

    report2 the nor&al value of the i&porte% refractor *ric8s per &etric ton was

    D> 12772 an% that such report woul% *e use% as *asis for the revision of

    the price polic an% structure of ,4C.

    9t *ears stressin' that2 %urin' the conference2 the petitioner an% the

    private respon%ent ha% a'ree% on three aspects of the case (1) *ase% on

    theprima faciefin%in's of the B9S2 the nor&al value of the 'oo%s per &eter

    ton was D> 1277 an% that the actual e+port price of ,4C was *elow the

    fair &ar8et valueK () to ter&inate the case2 ,4C will have to a%/ust an%

    revise its price polic an% structure for i&porte% refractor *ric8s to confor&

    to R.A. !o. ":;< an% rules an% re'ulations i&ple&entin' the lawK an% (

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    50/65

    writ of e+ecution without nee% of %e&an%. ,owever2 the petitioner an% the

    private respon%ent coul% not have a'ree% on such *ase priceK the

    petitioner insiste% on the a&ount reco&&en%e% * the B9S (D> 1277)

    while the private respon%ent insiste% on D> $67. 4here was an i&passe.

    B wa of a co&pro&ise2 the parties a'ree% to %o awa with the B9S

    reco&&en%e% *ase

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    51/65

    value an% a'ree% for ,4C to *ase the nor&al value of the i&portation

    per &etric ton un%er R.A. !o. ":;< an% the rules issue% i&ple&entin' the

    law. 4his is 'leane% fro& the affi%avit of Bor'onia

    1r. von Spren'eisen su''este% that the

    value of D> 12767@ton *e applie% as the price at which ,a&*ur' 4ra%in' woul%

    sell Ger&an-&a%e &a'nesite-*ase% refractor *ric8s in the hilippines. >r.

    illanueva %i% not a'ree to the su''este% value2 as we consi%ere% it low. 9n the

    en%2 *oth parties %eci%e% to *ase the %eter&ination of the price on the provisions

    of Repu*lic Act !o. ":;< an% its i&ple&entin' rules an% re'ulations. M[;;]

    Bor'onia prepare% the first co&pro&ise a'ree&ent an% incorporate%

    therein the a'ree&ent of the petitioner an% the private respon%ent arrive%

    at %urin' the conference2 thus

    1. 3or the purpose of *uin' peace an% * wa of concession in or%er to en%

    liti'ation2 the SHC0!D AR4I un%erta8es an% co&&its to refor& its pricin'

    polic an% structure with respect to refractor pro%ucts *ein' i&porte%

    interest sol% in the hilippines in accor%ance with the provisions of Repu*lic

    Act ":;< an% its i&ple&entin' rules an% re'ulations.[;6]

    9f2 as clai&e% * the petitioner in his Affi%avit-Co&plaint2 he an% the

    private respon%ent ha% a'ree% that ,4C will use as *asis for its price polic

    an% structural revision2 the B9S report2 for sure2 Bor'onia woul% have

    http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn45http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn46http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn45http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn46
  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    52/65

    incorporate% the sai% a'ree&ent in the first co&pro&ise a'ree&ent. ,e

    %i% not2 an% Bor'onia has not offere% an e+planation for such failure. 4he

    petitioner si'ne% the %raft of the a'ree&ent without an plaint or revision. 9t

    was onl in the secon% co&pro&ise a'ree&ent that was later si'ne% * the

    petitioner an% the private respon%ent that Bor'onia incorporate% the phrase

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    53/65

    *ase% on the fin%in's of the B9S. Bor'onia an% the petitioner &a%e

    the insertion on their own2 without the a priori consent of the private

    respon%ent.

    4he Court is not convince% * the petitioners contention (an% that of

    Bor'onia in his Affi%avit) that the petitioner an% the private respon%ent ha%

    a'ree% to leave the final %eter&ination of the *ase value or price of

    i&portation per &etric ton to a thir% part (B9S). 4he private respon%ent

    coul% not have a'ree% to the use of the B9S report *ecause2 as &entione%2

    he ha% strenuousl o*/ecte% to its use as *asis for the revision of its price

    polic an% structure. 3or ,4C to a%&it that the B9S fin%in' of D> 1277 per

    &etric ton was the nor&al value of the refractor *ric8s fro& Ger&an for

    the purpose of resolvin' the anti-%u&pin' case is one thin'K *ut for ,4C to

    a'ree to *e *oun% * the B9S reco&&en%ation for the purpose of revisin'

    its price polic an% structure is co&pletel a %ifferent &atter.

    Jith the petitioner an% the private respon%ents a%&ission of the

    prima facie fin%in's of the B9S2 the Co&&ission can prepare its

    reco&&en%ation to the Special Co&&ittee on the protest of the RC to the

    ,4C i&portation su*/ect of the case. 4hereafter

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    54/65

    D. 4he Special Co&&ittee shall2 within fifteen (16) %as after receipt

    of the report of the Co&&ission2 %eci%e whether the article in ?uestion is *ein'

    i&porte% in violation of this section an% shall 'ive %ue notice of such %ecision. 9n

    case the %ecision of %u&pin' is in the affir&ative2 the special co&&ittee shall%irect the Co&&issioner of Custo&s to cause the %u&pin' %ut2 to *e levie%2

    collecte% an% pai%2 as prescri*e% in this section2 in a%%ition to an other %uties2

    ta+es an% char'es i&pose% * law on such article2 an% on the articles of the

    sa&e specific 8in% or class su*se?uentl i&porte% un%er si&ilar circu&stances

    co&in' fro& the specific countr.

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    55/65

    9n the event that the Special Co&&ittee fails to %eci%e within the perio%

    prescri*e% herein2 the reco&&en%ation of the Co&&ission shall *e %ee&e%

    approve% an% shall *e final an% e+ecutor.[;#]

    0n the &atter of the revision or a%/ust&ent of the price polic an%

    structure of ,4C2 the parties ha% a'ree% to acco&plish the sa&e in %ue

    ti&e. 9t 'oes without sain' that the RC retaine% the ri'ht to o*/ect to or

    protest to the price polic an% structure revision of ,4C.

    4he a'ree&ent of the petitioner an% the private respon%ent not to *e

    *oun% * the *ase value in the B9S report for the revision of its price polic

    an% structure is not une+pecte% *ecause (1) the fin%in's of the B9S are

    onlprima facie2 &eanin' to sa2 not conclusive2 an% ,4C was accor%e% a

    chance to *ase its price polic an% structure on evi%ence an% infor&ations

    other than those containe% in the B9S reportK () the nor&al value of the

    i&porte% refractor *ric8s &a fluctuate fro& ti&e to ti&e2 hence2 the nee%

    for an i&porter to revise its price polic an% structure fro& ti&e to ti&eK

    an% (

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    56/65

    4he process a'ree% upon * the petitioner an% the private

    respon%ent was not onl practical an% fair2 *ut in accor% with law as well.

    9n fine2 the private respon%ent %i% not co&&it an falsehoo% in the

    Fr'ent >otion an% his Affi%avit of >erit when he %eclare% that he an% the

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    57/65

    petitioner put *ehin% the& the B9S report2 an% a'ree% to use R.A. !o.

    ":;< an% the rules an% re'ulations i&ple&entin' the sa&e to %eter&ine

    the *ase price for the revision of the price polic an% structure of ,4C.

    A%&itte%l2 the respon%ent %i% not o*/ect to the offen%in' phrase

    *efore an% after si'nin' the a'ree&ent an% for a consi%era*le stretch

    perio% until ,4C file% its &otion. ,owever2 we %o not a'ree with the

    contention of the petitioner that such failure of the respon%ent to o*/ect to

    the offen%in' phrase for such perio% of ti&e a&ounte% to an a%&ission

    that2 in%ee%2 the private respon%ent was aware of the offen%in' phrase in

    the A'ree&ent2 an% to his a'ree&ent theretoK an% estoppe% the private

    respon%ent fro& alle'in' that he was %eceive% * the petitioner into si'nin'

    the Co&pro&ise A'ree&ent. 9n his appeal to the D02 the private

    respon%ent %eclare% that

    r. Bor'onia woul% &a8e such an insertion2

    especiall after respon%ent-appellant ha% accepte% the fa+ Co&pro&ise

    A'ree&ent wor%in' an% convee% such acceptance to co&plainant-appellees

    office. Respon%ent-appellant also ha% to reason to even thin8 that such a

    surreptitious insertion woul% *e &a%eK after all2 he ha% a ver war& an% frien%l

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    58/65

    &eetin' with co&plainant-appellee an% >r. Bor'onia an% ca&e out of it with a

    feelin' that he coul% trust co&plainant-appellee (p. ;2 Anne+ C).

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    59/65

    insertions or wor%in' %ifferent fro& the fa+ Co&pro&ise A'ree&ent2 an%

    on respon%ent-appellants un%erstan%in' that the wor%in' of the har% cop

    Co&pro&ise A'ree&ent woul% *e e+actl the sa&e as the fa+ Co&pro&ise

    A'ree&ent2 constitutes the frau% or %eceit alle'e%l * respon%ent-appellant.[;"]

    9n his re/oin%er-affi%avit2 the private respon%ent e+plaine% that

    . A'ain2 contrar to the alle'ations in the Repl-Affi%avits2 9 was una*le to

    review the Co&pro&ise A'ree&ent %elivere% * >r. Gutierre5 on April

    1$$" as 9 was *us with nu&erous calls an% *usiness at the ti&e it was

    %elivere%. Also2 9 ha% *een le% to *elieve in our &eetin's with >r.illanueva an% >r. Bor'onia that 9 coul% trust the&. So2 after havin' seen

    the fa+ Co&pro&ise A'ree&ent an% *ein' a&ena*le to it2 9 truste% that the

    woul% sen% a 'enuine har% cop. As it turne% out2 9 was &ista8en.[;:]

    >oreover2 even *efore filin' the Fr'ent >otion an% si'nin' the

    Affi%avit of >erit2 the private respon%ent trie% for several ti&es to contact

    the petitioner2 *ut the latter faile% to return his calls. 4his reinforce% the

    suspicion of the private respon%ent that the insertion of the offen%in'

    phrase was not2 after all2 ina%vertent *ut %eli*erate2 calculate% to %eceive

    hi& to the pre/u%ice of ,4C. 4he private respon%ent &a *e *la&e% for

    puttin' too &uch trust an% confi%ence on the petitioner2 *ut he certainl

    cannot *e in%icte% for per/ur for lac8 of pro*a*le cause.

    http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn48http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn49http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn48http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftn49
  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    60/65

    4he petitioner faile% to appen% to his petition recor%s of the

    Co&&ission that the private respon%ent appeare% for ,4C2 on >a $2

    1$$"2 *efore the Co&&ission for the hearin' on the Co&pro&ise

    A'ree&entK an% showin' that the private respon%ent %i% not o*/ect thereto.

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    61/65

    IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING2 the petition is DENIEDfor lac8

    of &erit. 4he assaile% Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. S !o.

    "#$$$ is AFFIRMED. Costs a'ainst the petitioner.

    SO ORDERED.

    ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.

    Asso(iate !%sti(e

    HE CONCUR:

    REYNATO S. PUNO

    Asso(iate !%sti(e

    Chair$an

    MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA%MARTINEZ DANTE O. TINGA

    Asso(iate !%sti(e Asso(iate !%sti(e

    On &ea/eMINITA V. CHICO%NAZARIO

    Associate ustice

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    62/65

    A T T E S T A T I O N

    9 attest that the conclusions in the a*ove Decision were reache% in

    consultation *efore the case was assi'ne% to the writer of the opinion of the

    Courts Division.

    REYNATO S. PUNO

    Associate ustice

    Chair&an2 Secon% Division

    C E R T I F I C A T I O N

    ursuant to Section 1

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    63/65

    HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR.

    Chief ustice

    * On leave.[1] Penned b !""#$%a&e '("&%$e !nd)e" . +ee", ')., -%& !""#$%a&e '("&%$e" (enaven&()a '. /(e))e)#

    and +ealad# E. aab#n, $#n$())%n Rollo,. 28!44.[2] Se$&%#n 3 # +e(bl%$ !$& N#. 7843 )ead" SEC. 3. Se$&%#n 301, Pa)& 2, %&le II, ## I # &e a)% and C("" C#de # &e P%l%%ne", a"aended, %" e)eb ()&e) aended )ead a" #ll#-"

    :SEC. 301. Dumping Duty.; :!.

  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    64/65

    &e aen& # "($ d(&%e", ee" and $a)e" % a d(%n $a"e %" e"&abl%"ed. I &e )#&e"& %"d%"%""ed, &e $a" de#"%& "all be )e&()ned &e %#)&e) -%&%n &en >10A da" )# &e %nal%& #&e #)de).H e la- a" been aended b +e(bl%$ !$& N#. 8752, #&e)-%"e n#-n a" &e !n&%D(%n

    !$& # 1999.[3] Rollo,. 113.[4] Rollo,. 4546.[5] Id. a& 80.[6] Id. a& 7879.[7] Id. a& 4748.[8] Id. a& 64.[9] Rollo,. 49.[10]Rollo,. 5556.[11]Id. a& 6667.[12]Rollo, . 67.[13]Id. a& 7177.[14]Rollo,. 8788.[15]Rollo, . 116.[16]Ibid.[17]Id. a& 123136.[18]Id. a& 137146.[19]Id. a& 2844.[20]Rollo,. 4243.[21]Ibid.[](1) M the conclusion is a fin%in' 'roun%e% entirel on speculation2 sur&ise an% con/ectureK () the

    inference &a%e is &anifestl &ista8enK (1973A $%&%n S&(d # Pe)(), )e)%n&ed %n +e#)& # Ne- J#) +ev%"%#nC#%""%#n, Ke%", D#$. N#. 60, . 249 >1935A.[28]Bron!ton v. $."., !upra.[29]$.". v. E!tra&a,16 P%l. 520 >1910A.

    [30]Dia' v. (eople of t)e ()ilippine!,/.+. N#. 65006, 31 O$be) 1990, 191 SC+! 86.[31](adua v. (a',!.. N#. P001445, 30 !)%l 2003, 402 SC+! 21.[32](eople v. Abaya,74 P%l. 59 >1942A.[33]*elc) v. "tate,157 S.1967A $.". v. Bergman,354 =.2d931 >1966A $.". v. elly,540 =.2d 990 >1976A.[38]$.". v. Capi!trano,40 P%l. 902 >1920A.

    http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref4http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref4http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref5http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref5http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref6http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref6http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref7http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref7http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref8http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref8http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref9http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref9http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref10http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref10http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref11http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref12http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref13http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref14http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref15http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref16http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref17http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref18http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref19http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref20http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref21http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref22http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref23http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref24http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref25http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref26http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref27http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref28http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref29http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref30http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref31http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref32http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref33http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref34http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref35http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref36http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref37http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref38http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref39http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref4http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref5http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref6http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref7http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref8http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref9http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref10http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref11http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref12http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref13http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref14http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref15http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref16http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref17http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref18http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref19http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref20http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref21http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref22http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref23http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref24http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref25http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref26http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref27http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref28http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref29http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref30http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref31http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref32http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref33http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref34http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref35http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref36http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref37http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref38http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref39
  • 8/12/2019 JURIS Perjury Cases

    65/65

    [39](eople v. McClintic,160 N.1916A.[40]$.". v. Berardi,629 =.2d 723 >1980A.[41]$.". v. Lococo,450 =.2d 1196 >1971A.[42]Rollo,. 87.[43]Rollo,. 76.[44]Rollo,. 64.[45]Id. a& 45.[46]Se$&%#n 301 # &e a)% and C("" C#de a" aended b +e(bl%$ !$& N#. 7843.[47]Rollo,. 9899.[48]Id. a& 81.

    Supreme Court E-Library

    http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref40http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref41http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref42http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref43http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref44http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref45http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref46http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref47http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref48http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref49http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref40http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref41http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref42http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref43http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref44http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref45http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref46http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref47http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref48http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2005.zip%3E5a7,df%7C2005/NOV2005/162187.htm#_ftnref49