Republic of the Philippines

8th Judicial Region

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
xx
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff;

Criminal Case No. 2011-06-CR-36

For:
PERJURY

-versusxx
Defendants.
x-------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION
Letecia Inot, a former tenant of the private complainant, is accused of
perjury for executing an affidavit dated November 5, 2010, the material portions of
which are as follows:
xxx
2.

Likewise, said lot is not only tenanted by us but also cultivated personally
by other tillers namely: Santiago Sinugbuhan from 1984 up to the present,
Roberto Orquesta who succeeded his deceased mother Aurora Orquesta,
who started cultivating said portion in 1985, Felicito Lacaba from 1976 up
to the present, Marlon Demelino from 1998 up to the present, Rosito
Lacaba from 1960 up to the present, Vicente Rosalejos from 1988 up to
the present and Bienvenido Rosalejos from 1992 up to the present;

3.

That, the cultivators of said lot enumerated above are all permitted by
Camilo Enriquez Sr. during his lifetime;

xxx
According to the prosecution, accused knew that the aforesaid statements are
not true because she previously executed an affidavit dated January 17, 2003,
wherein she affirmed and swore that the same persons stated above are not
farmers/tenants of the same property.
Consequently, Inot was charged with Perjury and filed before this Court on
June 21, 2011. The information reads as follows:
That on or about the 5th day of November 2010, in the city of Tacloban,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and knowingly
execute an affidavit which the accused subscribed and sworn to before notary
public Mark Gil P. Tadena, a notary public for and in Tacloban City, duly
appointed, qualified, and acting as such wherein the accused affirmed and swore
that Santiago Sinugbuhan, Roberto Orquesta, Felicito Lacaba, Marlon Demelino,
Rosito Lacaba, Vicente and Bienvenido, both surnamed, Rosalejos personally
cultivated and are tenants of the property owned by Cali Realty Corporation
which affidavit is attached and material to the petition for revocation of the
Page 1 of 5

exemption from CARP coverage of the property owned by Cali Realty

Corporation filed by the above-named persons when in truth and in fact the
accused knew that her statements are not true because she previously executed
an affidavit dated January 17, 2003 subscribed and sworn to before prosecutor
Percival P. Dolina, a government employee authorized to administer oath,
wherein the accused affirmed and swore under oath that the same persons,
except for Marlon Demelino, are not farmers/tenants of the same property which
affidavit was also submitted to the DAR in support of the application of the
company from CARP coverage of the same property which application was
subsequently approved on August 4, 2004.

When arraigned on August 23, 2011, accused, assisted by counsel, pleaded

not guilty.
At the trial, accused presented her sole testimony through her judicial
affidavit denying the allegations of Dr. Camilo M. Enriquez, Jr., the private
offended party. She added that she was not aware of the contents of the affidavit
they say she executed in January 17, 2003 as she was not given a copy thereof nor
were its contents explained to her in the language she is familiar with.
The Courts Ruling
In a case, the Supreme Court1 said that perjury is the willful and corrupt
assertion of a falsehood under oath or affirmation administered by authority of law
on a material matter. Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code states the definition of
and penalty for perjury, thus:
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 make
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 made in this and the three
preceding articles of this section shall suffer the respective penalties provided
therein.
As can be gleaned from the foregoing, the elements of perjury are as
follows:
(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.
1 Monfort vs. Salvatierra, GR No. 168301, March 5, 2007
Page 2 of 5

(d) That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required
by law or made for a legal purpose.
The third element of perjury requires that the accused had willfully and
deliberately asserted a falsehood. A mere assertion of a false objective fact is
not sufficient. The assertion must be deliberate and willful. (emphasis added)

In the instant case, the prosecution failed to establish the fact that the
accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood in her affidavit dated
November 5, 2010.
The Information reads: accused affirmed and swore that Santiago Sinugbuhan,
Roberto Orquesta, Felicito Lacaba, Marlon Demelino, Rosito Lacaba, Vicente and
Bienvenido, both surnamed, Rosalejos personally cultivated and are tenants of the
property owned by Cali Realty Corporation (emphasis added); yet, the subject
affidavit merely states:
2.

Likewise, said lot is not only tenanted by us but also cultivated

personally by other tillers namely: Santiago Sinugbuhan from 1984 up
to the present, Roberto Orquesta who succeeded his deceased mother
Aurora Orquesta, who started cultivating said portion in 1985, Felicito
Lacaba from 1976 up to the present, Marlon Demelino from 1998 up to the
present, Rosito Lacaba from 1960 up to the present, Vicente Rosalejos
from 1988 up to the present and Bienvenido Rosalejos from 1992 up to
the present;

3.

That, the cultivators of said lot enumerated above are all permitted by
Camilo Enriquez Sr. during his lifetime; (emphasis added);

hence, the prosecutions basis of its allegation is not entirely accurate. The
affidavit simply states that the subject persons cultivated personally the subject
lot, and does not say that the subject persons personally cultivated and are
tenants of the subject property. There is a world of difference in the two statements
when viewed under the concept of tenancy relationship, which is a relevant issue in
this case.
To distinguish, the first statement is simply an expression of fact while the
second is a legal concept. The former is within the competence of the accused to
testify, while the latter is outside his competence. Tenant or tenancy relationship is
defined by law and jurisprudence. For example, under Republic Act 1190, a tenant
is a person who, himself or with the aid from within the immediate farm
household, cultivates the land belonging to, or possessed by, another with the
latters consent, for the purpose of production, sharing the production with the
landlord or paying the landlord a price certain. Immediate farm household includes
members of the tenants family, who includes his sons-in-law or grandsons.2
In the subject affidavit, there is no showing that accused willfully and
deliberately asserts the tenancy relationship of the mentioned persons with the
offended party. The bare statement that the subject persons cultivated personally
2 Pangilinan v. Alvendia, 101 Phil 794 [1957]
Page 3 of 5

the subject lot may not be in fact, false. First, there is no showing from
prosecutions evidence that the mentioned persons did not cultivate personally the
subject lot. Second, the first affidavit of the accused dated January 17, 2003,
attached as Annex D in the offended partys affidavit (which the offended party
used as supporting document for his application for exemption from CARP
coverage), shows that during the said meeting, the DAR Tripartite Task Force
recommended to DR. CAMILO M. ENRIQUEZ, JR., CALI Realty representative,
that these occupants who agreed to vacate within one (1) year were allowed to
harvest their farm products for their consumption without paying any rental to the
landowner.3 (emphasis added) This statement, by implication, proves that indeed,
there were occupants in the subject property who cultivated and tilled the land,
otherwise, there would have been nothing to harvest as farm products.
Moreover, this first affidavit was shown by prosecution as the basis that
accused committed perjury because accused knew that her statements [in the
second affidavit] are not true because she previously executed an affidavit dated
January 17, 2003 xxx, wherein the accused affirmed and swore under oath that the
same persons, except for Marlon Demelino, are not farmers/tenants of the same
property xxx.(emphasis added)
On this wise, suffice it to state that way back in 1920, the Supreme Court in
a case has already held that:
4

A conviction for perjury cannot be sustained merely on the contradictory

sworn statements of the defendant, but the state must prove which of the two
statements is false and must show that statement to be false by other evidence
than the contradictory statement. . . . xxx (21 R. C. L., 271, citing People vs.
McClintic [Mich.], 160 N. W., 461; L. R. A. [1917C], 52 and note; Billingsley vs.
State. 49 Tex. Crim., 620, 95 S. W., 520, 13 ann. Cas., 730.)
In People vs. McClintic (supra) the court held the following:
1. Perjury; Contradictory Statements; Effect. Contradictory statements
under oath will not alone convict one of perjury. (For other cases, see Evidence
XII l, in Dig. 1-52 N. S.)
xxx
In the syllabus of Billingsley vs. State the following is said:
4. Perjury; Evidence; Contradictory Statements. A conviction for perjury
cannot be sustained merely upon the contradictory sworn statements of the
defendant, but the state must prove which of the two statements is false and
must show that statement to be false by other evidence than the contradictory
statement. (emphasis added)

In the instant case, the Court is not convinced that accuseds first and second
affidavits contradict each other. Again, the statement in paragraph 3 of the first
affidavit which says: That these occupants were never farmer nor tenants of the
3 See Affidavit, par. 6, records, p. 42.
4 US vs. Capistrano, GR No. L-15001, March 15, 1920
Page 4 of 5

herein mentioned landholdings of Mr. CAMILO ENRIQUEZ or CALI REALTY

CORP. xxx is not diametrically opposed to the statement in the second affidavit
which simply states: said lot is not only tenanted by us but also cultivated
personally by other tillers namely: xxx for the same reasons already stated above.
Finally, as pointed out by the accused in its memorandum: the Supreme
Court expressed that it is the deliberate making of untruthful statements upon any
material matter before a competent person authorized to administer oath in cases
which the law so requires which is imperative in perjury.
WHEREFORE, for failure to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, the Court hereby ACQUITS accused Letecia Inot from the
offense as charged.
SO ORDERED.
Tacloban City, September 15, 2015.
.
xx
Presiding Judge

Copy Furnished:
Plaintiffs Counsel
Defense Counsel

Page 5 of 5