G.R. No. L-8825; October 18, 1913
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARTIN ESCONDO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Martin Escondo was charged with perjury for allegedly falsely testifying under oath before the municipal treasurer of Atimonan that he had paid for and acquired his personal registration certificate (cedula) for 1910 in Magdalena, Laguna, and had lost it, when in fact he had not obtained one for that year. To prove this fact, the prosecution presented as its sole evidence an affidavit from the municipal treasurer of Magdalena, sworn before the justice of the peace, stating that the accused did not acquire his cedula in that municipality in 1910. The defense objected to the admission of this affidavit as evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the affidavit of the municipal treasurer of Magdalena is admissible as evidence to prove the fact that the accused did not acquire a cedula in 1910, for the purpose of establishing the crime of perjury.

RULING

No. The affidavit is inadmissible. The facts in a criminal case cannot be proved by affidavits. Affidavits are admissible only in specific procedural matters and constitute merely prima facie evidence, as per Section 348 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which applies more strictly in criminal cases. The defendant has a constitutional right, under Section 5 of the Philippine Bill and Section 15 of General Orders, No. 58, to be confronted by the witnesses against him and to cross-examine them. Admitting an affidavit as evidence would deprive the defendant of this right, as it is an extrajudicial declaration made without the defendant’s presence or opportunity for cross-examination. Since the prosecution presented no other evidence besides the inadmissible affidavit, the alleged fact that the accused did not acquire a cedula for 1910 was not legally proven. Consequently, the crime of perjury was not established. The judgment of conviction is reversed, and the defendant is acquitted.