US v. Pablo Digest 1916

G.R. No. L-11676           October 17, 1916

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ANDRES PABLO, defendant-appellant.

Alfonso E. Mendoza for appellant.
Attorney-General Avanceña for appellee.

Facts of the Case:

           A policeman named Andres Pablo of the municipality of Balanga went to the barrio of Tuyo to raid a jueteng game. Upon arrival, he recover a tambiolo and 37 bolas. The said officer also saw Maximo Malicsi and Antonio Rodrigo about to leave the place however, only Francisco Dato was arrested.

     Pablo testified under oath that when he and his companion Tomas de Leon arrived he only saw Francisco Dato in place, leading to the acquittal of Malicsi and Rodrigo and sentencing only Dato.

        However, upon the provincial fiscal’s investigation, it was found out that Pablo had a conference with accused Malicsi and Rodrigo and agreed that he would exclude the involvement of the two in the case in exchange of a bribe of fifteen pesos.

          By reason of the foregoing, provincial fiscal, filed in the Court of First Instance of Bataan charging Andres Pablo with the crime of perjury, under the provisions of section 3 of Act No. 1697. However, the Act No. 1697 relating to perjury, and the repealing clause of the said Administrative Code does not say under what other penal law in force the crime of false testimony, at least, if not that of perjury, shall be punished.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of the crime of perjury or of false testimony under art. 318 to 324 of the Revised Penal Code when the same has been deemed repealed by Act No. 1697.

Held: 

           Yes. The Article 318 to 324 of the Penal Code in which the crime of false testimony has been punished was not specifically repealed by the said Act. No. 1697. Article 318 to 324 of the Penal Code is deemed to be in force and are properly applicable to crimes of false testimony.

          Thereby sentencing Andres Pablo to the penalty of two years four months and one day of prision correccional, to pay a fine of 1,000 pesetas, and, in case of insolvency, to suffer the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment, which shall not exceed one-third of the principal penalty. He shall also pay the costs of both instances.