This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-11-18 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| A mere assertion of a false objective fact, a falsehood, is not enough. The assertion must be deliberate and willful.[31] Perjury being a felony by dolo, there must be malice on the part of the accused.[32] Willfully means intentionally; with evil intent and legal malice, with the consciousness that the alleged perjurious statement is false with the intent that it should be received as a statement of what was true in fact. It is equivalent to "knowingly." "Deliberately" implies meditated as distinguished from inadvertent acts.[33] It must appear that the accused knows his statement to be false or as consciously ignorant of its truth.[34] | |||||
|
2005-01-31 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The third element of perjury requires that the accused willfully and deliberately assert a falsehood. Good faith or lack of malice is a valid defense.[26] Here, the Court finds that respondent Pascua's statement in his counter-affidavit in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 that he called the 16 July 1998 meeting does not constitute a deliberate assertion of falsehood. While it was Yabut and some unidentified ACNTS personnel who requested a dialogue with respondent Pascua, it was respondent Pascua's consent to their request which led to the holding of the meeting. Thus, respondent Pascua's statement in question is not false much less malicious. It is a good faith interpretation of events leading to the holding of the meeting. | |||||