Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
The content of this document includes Criminal Law in the PH
Typology: Slides
1 / 13
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
This presentation aims to provide a comprehensive overview of Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, which defines and penalizes the crime of perjury. We will delve into the elements, ways of commission, and relevant jurisprudence to better understand this legal concept.
ARTICLE 183 It is committed by any person, who knowingly makes untruthful statements and not being included in Articles 180 to 182 , 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. It is also committed by 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.
TAKE NOTE The false statement must not be in a judicial proceeding. Good faith or lack of malice is a defense in perjury.
Perjury as applied to Privileged Communication The principle of privileged communication can intersect with perjury charges, particularly when statements are made within the context of a protected relationship, such as attorney-client or doctor-patient. While privileged communications are generally protected from disclosure, this protection does not extend to statements made with the intent to commit or conceal a crime, including perjury. In cases where a statement made during privileged communication is alleged to be perjurious, courts must carefully balance the need to protect confidential relationships with the public interest in ensuring truthful testimony. The privilege may be waived if there is evidence that the communication was made in furtherance of a criminal act. The specific facts and circumstances of each case will dictate whether the privilege applies.
Confidentiality Privileged communication protected.
Intent to Commit Crime Privilege may be waived.
Court's Balance Protection vs. truthful testimony.
Venue in perjury cases is typically determined by where the false statement was made or where the oath was administered. This is crucial for ensuring the proper jurisdiction and fairness in legal proceedings. Determining the correct venue can be complex, especially in cases involving statements made in one location but intended to be used in another. Legal counsel can provide guidance on venue issues. Improper venue can be grounds for dismissal of the case, as it affects the court's authority to hear and decide the matter. Challenges to venue must be raised promptly to avoid waiver. In some instances, venue may be transferred to another location if it is deemed more convenient for the parties and witnesses involved. The convenience of the accused will also be taken into consideration.
Where the false statement was made.
Where the oath was taken.
Ensuring fairness in proceedings.
Subornation of perjury.
Article 184: Offering False Testimony in Evidence
Union Bank of the Philippines and Desi Tomas vs. People of the Philippines. G.R. No. 192565, February 28, 2012
Tomas was charged in court for perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) for making a false narration in a Certificate against Forum Shopping. That on or about the 13 th day of March 2000 in the City of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, Tomas, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously make untruthful statements under oath upon a material matter before a competent person authorized to administer oath which the law requires to wit. The accusation stemmed from petitioner Union Bank’s two ( 2 ) complaints for sum of money with prayer for a writ of replevin against the spouses Eddie and Eliza Tamondong and a John Doe. The first complaint was filed before the RTC, Branch 109 , Pasay City on April 13 , 1998. The second complaint, was filed on March 15 , 2000 and raffled to the MeTC, Branch 47 , Pasay City. Both complaints showed that Tomas executed and signed the Certification against Forum Shopping. Accordingly, she was charged of deliberately violating Article 183 of the RPC by falsely declaring under oath in the Certificate against Forum Shopping in the second complaint that she did not commence any other action or proceeding involving the same issue in another tribunal or agency.
