GR 852; (April, 1902) (Digest)
G.R. No. 852 : April 28, 1902
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. PATRICIO ANTONIO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
The defendant, Patricio Antonio, was charged with the crime of perjury. The complaint alleged that in a prior criminal case against Gabriel Dancel for discharging a firearm and inflicting lesiones menos graves upon Miguel Marunao, Antonio testified under oath that Dancel fired only one shot, which caused the death of Eustrasio Guerrero and simultaneously wounded Marunao. The prosecution contended that, in fact, two shots were firedthe first killing Guerrero and the second wounding Marunao.
The records from the Dancel case revealed conflicting testimonies: four witnesses, including Antonio, testified to a single gunshot, while three others testified to two shots. In the present perjury case, the evidence remained contradictory. The prosecution presented four witnesses who affirmed there were two shots, while the defense presented four witnesses who insisted there was only one. The defense witnesses were near the scene but not involved in the altercation, and they testified they would have heard a second shot. In contrast, the prosecution witnesses, who were participants in the incident, stated they fled after the first shot and heard the second while running. Notably, medical experts from the Dancel case opined it was very possible, even probable, that both victims were hit by the same shot, given the positions and distances involved.
ISSUE:
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Patricio Antonio willfully and knowingly testified falsely (committed perjury) when he stated under oath that Gabriel Dancel fired only one shot.
RULING:
The Supreme Court ACQUITTED Patricio Antonio and REVERSED the lower court’s judgment. The Court held that the evidence did not establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Given the directly contradictory testimonies from witnesses in both the original case and the perjury trial, and considering the expert opinion suggesting a single shot could have caused both injuries, the Court could not reach a moral certainty that Antonio deliberately lied in his testimony. The prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence. Costs were adjudged de oficio.