G.R. Nos. 173935-38, December 23, 2008
ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO, petitioner, vs. MA. ERLINDA I. BILDNER, LILY F. RAQUEÑO, SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO, MA. CRISTINA A. ILUSORIO, AND AURORA I. MONTEMAYOR, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Erlinda K. Ilusorio charged respondents with perjury before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasig City. The charges arose from respondents, as purported corporate officers of Lakeridge Development Corp. (LDC), filing petitions in the Makati City and Tagaytay City Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) for the issuance of new owner’s duplicate copies of certificates of title (CCT No. 21578 and TCT Nos. 17010, 17011, and 17012), alleging that the original copies were lost despite earnest and diligent efforts to locate them. The Informations alleged that respondents willfully swore to false statements in these petitions, as the titles were, in truth, in the possession of petitioner, who claimed to be the bona fide chairman and president of LDC. Petitioner filed oppositions to the petitions, after which respondents amended their petitions to reflect that the titles were not lost but were in petitioner’s possession without authority. Petitioner then filed charges for falsification of public documents and perjury. The Investigating Prosecutor found probable cause for perjury, leading to the filing of four Informations. Respondents moved to quash the Informations, arguing improper venue, lack of basis due to withdrawal of the original petitions, and privileged character of the pleadings. The MeTC, while upholding venue, granted the motion to quash on the ground that statements in judicial pleadings are absolutely privileged and cannot be the basis for perjury prosecution, citing Flordelis v. Himalalaon and People v. Aquino. The Pasig City RTC affirmed this decision. Petitioner elevated the case directly to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, raising a pure question of law.

ISSUE

Whether statements made in judicial pleadings, even if alleged to be false, are absolutely privileged and thus not subject to criminal prosecution for perjury.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the quashal of the Informations. The Court held that statements in pleadings filed in court that are relevant to the issues in the case are absolutely privileged and cannot be the basis for a perjury prosecution. The Court clarified that perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code requires that the false statement be made in an affidavit or deposition before a competent person authorized to administer an oath. In this case, the alleged false statements were contained in petitions filed in court, which are not affidavits or depositions as contemplated by the law. The Court distinguished the cited cases: People v. Aquino involved libel, not perjury, and Flordelis v. Himalalaon involved an unsworn answer, which could not support perjury. The Court emphasized that for perjury to lie, the statement must be required by law to be under oath (e.g., an affidavit or deposition). Here, the petitions, though verified, were not affidavits executed for a purpose specifically required by law to be under oath for the crime of perjury. The Court also noted that the amended petitions superseded the original ones, rendering the original allegations irrelevant. The procedural issue regarding hierarchy of courts was dismissed, as the petition raised only a question of law, making a direct appeal to the Supreme Court proper under Rule 45. The MeTC’s jurisdiction over the venue was upheld, but the quashal was sustained on the privileged character of the pleadings. No costs were awarded.