G.R. No. L-48088. July 31, 1978.
Gotardo Flordelis, petitioner, vs. Honorable Edgar R. Himalaloan, as Acting City Judge, City Court of Tagbilaran, Branch 11; The People of the Philippines; and Sulpicio Tinampay, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Gotardo Flordelis was charged with perjury before the City Court of Tagbilaran. The information alleged that, in a verified answer to a civil complaint for collection filed by Atty. Sulpicio Tinampay, Flordelis willfully asserted he did not owe Tinampay anything nor engage his legal services. The prosecution claimed this was false, as Flordelis had indeed engaged Tinampay’s services in two prior criminal cases. Flordelis moved to quash the information on two grounds: that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, and that the information contains averments which constitute a defense.
Respondent Judge denied the motion to quash, ruling it was premature. The court held that the prosecution must first be allowed to present the questioned pleadings as evidence during trial, as the issues raised were purportedly questions of evidence that could not be resolved without a full presentation.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash the perjury information.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari and prohibition, ordering the dismissal of the perjury case. The legal logic is clear from the face of the information itself. For perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code to lie, the sworn statement must be required by law. An answer in an ordinary civil action for collection of a sum of money, such as the one where Flordelis filed his verified answer, is not required by law to be under oath. Therefore, a critical element of the crime is absent.
Furthermore, statements made in pleadings relevant to the issues in a judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged and cannot be the basis of a criminal prosecution for perjury, as established in People vs. Aquino. The information explicitly stated the alleged falsehood was in a “verified answer to the complaint” filed in court, making its privileged character apparent from the allegations themselves. The respondent judge’s requirement for the prosecution to present the pleadings first was erroneous, as the petitioner had already attached the complaint and answer to his motion, and their authenticity was not contested. Their legal import—showing the absence of a legal requirement to swear and the application of absolute privilege—was determinable without trial. Allowing a patently defective case to proceed would subject the accused to an unjust ordeal, making the special remedies of certiorari and prohibition appropriate, as an appeal would not be plain, speedy, and adequate.