G.R. No. L-15132; May 25, 1960
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUFO B. CRUZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On October 19, 1948, the accused Rufo B. Cruz filled out, signed, and swore to an application (Civil Service Form No. 2) before the municipal mayor of Cainta, Rizal, to take the patrolman examination. In said application, in response to Question No. 6 which asked if he had ever been accused, indicted, or tried for any violation before any court, he answered, “No, I have never been accused of any sort whatsoever.” It was established during trial that the accused knew this answer was false, as he had previously been criminally charged before the Justice of the Peace Court of Cainta, Rizal, in three cases: “atentado contra la autoridad” (Crim. Case No. 522, filed July 23, 1931), “lesiones menos graves” (Crim. Case No. 542, filed March 13, 1933), and physical injuries (Crim. Case No. 547, filed October 19, 1933). The case for “lesiones menos graves” was forwarded to the Court of First Instance, while the other two were dismissed. He was charged with falsification of documents on February 27, 1956. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him accordingly. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court on certification by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the crime committed by the accused is falsification of documents or perjury, and if it is perjury, whether the crime has already prescribed.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the crime committed is perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code, and not falsification of documents. The Court found all elements of perjury present: a willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under oath administered by authority of law on a material matter. The Court cited the analogous case of United States vs. Tupasi Molina (29 Phil., 119). On the issue of prescription, the Court held that the crime had not prescribed. The penalty for perjury is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period. Applying Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, which states that crimes punishable by a correctional penalty prescribe in ten years, and using the highest penalty in the compound penalty as the basis, the crime prescribes in ten years. The offense was committed on October 19, 1948, and the proceedings were instituted on February 27, 1956, a lapse of only 7 years, 4 months, and 8 days, well within the ten-year prescriptive period. The penalty was modified. The accused was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from 4 months of arresto mayor as minimum to 1 year and 1 day of prision correccional as maximum. The judgment of conviction was affirmed with this modification.