G.R. No. 4401
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FELISA BRONDIAL, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
September 29, 1908

FACTS:
The provincial fiscal of Albay filed a criminal complaint against Felisa Brondial and Juliana Selizar for perjury. The complaint alleged that during the trial of a civil case (No. 690) for the return of a watch or its value (P285), Felisa Brondial, under oath, knowingly, willfully, and maliciously declared she was 20 years old, while her mother, Juliana Selizar, declared her daughter was 18. Both were allegedly aware that Felisa was 25 years old, making these false declarations with the intent to evade civil liability. The charge against Juliana Selizar was temporarily dismissed.

An amended complaint was filed against Felisa Brondial. Her counsel then interposed a demurrer, arguing that the facts did not constitute perjury committed in a civil cause by a party to the suit. Citing the opinion of commentator Viada, the defense contended that perjury cannot be committed by a person who is a party to the civil suit. The Court of First Instance sustained the demurrer and dismissed the case, prompting the provincial fiscal to appeal.

ISSUE:
Can a party to a civil action be charged with and convicted of the crime of “false testimony” (perjury) for false declarations made under oath as a witness in their own case?

RULING:
Yes, a party to a civil action who gives false testimony as a witness in their own case can be held criminally liable for the crime of “false testimony” under Article 321 of the Penal Code.

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court, holding that under the present laws (General Orders No. 58 and the Code of Civil Procedure), parties to an action are entitled to testify as witnesses. If a court can consider a party’s sworn statement, it is just that if such testimony is proven false, the party should be punished. The liability arises not as a party litigant, but as a perjured witness.

The Court emphasized that it would be unjust to punish only those witnesses who perjure themselves to please a litigant, while allowing the litigant, who has the primary interest in the outcome, to benefit from their own criminal act of testifying falsely. The Court cited rulings from the Supreme Court of Spain which affirmed that a litigant or an injured party, when testifying, acts as a witness and is subject to the same liabilities for false testimony. The fact that a person is a party to the suit does not exempt them from criminal liability for perjury.

Therefore, the demurrer interposed by the counsel for the accused was inadmissible, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the law and the principles set forth.