Dear PAO,
My friend has a brother who recently died and left behind some properties. That brother had a sickly daughter and had no other relatives except for my friend. Despite knowing this, and in order to obtain the properties that his brother left behind, my friend willfully executed an affidavit, swearing under oath that he is the only surviving relative of his brother, to the prejudice of his niece. What will be his penalty under the law?
Merida

Dear Merida,
Please be informed of Section 1 of Republic Act 11594, which amended Article 183 of the Act 3815, as amended, otherwise known as “The Revised Penal Code,” which states that:

“Section 1. Article 183 of Act No. 3815, as amended, otherwise known as ‘The Revised Penal Code,’ is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Article 183. False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation. – The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who, knowingly making untruthful statements and not being included in the provisions of the next preceding articles, shall testify under oath, or make an affidavit, upon any material matter before a competent person authorized to administer an oath in cases in which the law so requires. Any person who, in case of a solemn affirmation made in lieu of an oath, shall commit any of the falsehoods mentioned in this and the three preceding articles of this section, shall suffer the respective penalties provided therein: Provided, That is the person responsible for the commission of this felony is a public officer or employee, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period: Provided, finally, That the offender shall also suffer a fine not to exceed One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) and perpetual absolute disqualification from holding any appointive or elective position in the government or in any agency, entity, or instrumentality thereof.” (Emphasis supplied)

In the case of Saulo vs. People of the Philippines (GR 242900, June 8, 2020, Associate Justice Jose Reyes Jr.), the Supreme Court ruled:
“The elements of perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) are (a) that the accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter; (b) that the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath; (c) that in the statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood; and (d) that the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose.”

Based on the above-stated, any person who knowingly made untruthful statements or an affidavit, upon any material matter, before a competent person authorized to administer an oath in cases in which the law so requires, or any person who, in case of a solemn affirmation made in lieu of an oath, shall commit any of the falsehoods, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period, or imprisonment up to 6 years and 1 day to 8 years. If the offender is a public officer or employee, the penalty shall be imprisonment in its maximum period, or imprisonment up to 10 years and 1 day to 12 years. Moreover, the offender shall also suffer a fine of not to exceed P1,000,000 and perpetual absolute disqualification from holding any appointive or elective position in the government or in any agency, entity, or instrumentality thereof.
In other words, based on your query, your friend may be held liable for the violation of the said act by the mere fact that he executed an affidavit, swearing under oath that he is the only surviving relative of his brother, knowing fully well that his brother has a daughter. If found guilty by a court of proper jurisdiction, may be penalized with imprisonment and fine as mentioned above. If he uses the said affidavit to the prejudice of his niece, he may incur other criminal and civil liabilities under existing laws.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]