G.R. No. 47710, December 28, 1942
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FRANCISCO ABAYA, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

In a civil case, Zosimo Fernandez obtained a judgment against Francisco Abaya. To satisfy this judgment, the provincial sheriff sold at public auction Abaya’s undivided half interest in certain parcels of land to Fernandez. The sheriff executed a certificate of absolute sale. Subsequently, Felicita Abaya, the defendant’s sister and owner of the other undivided half, sued Fernandez to recover the interest he bought, claiming the defendant had previously conveyed that interest to her. The courts ruled in favor of Fernandez. Later, the defendant filed a petition for voluntary insolvency. In the sworn schedule of debts accompanying his petition, he included the P4,000 debt to Fernandez. In the sworn inventory of properties, he listed his undivided half in the land as among the properties “registered in his name in the Registry of Property of the Province of Laguna.” On May 4, 1940, the defendant was charged with violating Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly wilfully, maliciously, and feloniously stating under oath in his insolvency case that the undivided half of the land was his when he fully knew it no longer belonged to him and was owned by Fernandez. The lower court sustained the defendant’s motion to quash and dismissed the information, holding the acts charged did not constitute false testimony as defined in Article 183. The Government appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the acts charged against the defendant constitute the crime of false testimony under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

No. The appealed judgment dismissing the information is correct and is affirmed. The record fails to show the defendant maliciously committed the imputed acts. The acts could not be malicious because, at the time the insolvency petition was filed, the land was still registered in the defendant’s name. He might have included it in the inventory for fear of being accused of concealing property registered in his name, in violation of the Insolvency Law. The defendant merely stated a fact in the inventory. The acts were not malicious against his creditors because, instead of concealing assets, he listed property that should not have been included. They were not malicious against Fernandez because the Torrens titles covering the land, as specified in the inventory, bore annotations of the writ of execution and the auction sales in favor of Fernandez, which protected his rights. The defendant made no allegation in the petition or inventory that could defeat those rights; on the contrary, he specifically referred to the civil case and the auction sales in the inventory. He also included his debt to Fernandez in the schedule, likely to be consistent with the inventory inclusion and to safeguard Fernandez’s rights.