Perjury Charges and Probable Cause: The Role of Good Faith in Affidavit Statements

The crime of perjury punishes those who make false statements under oath. But not every inaccurate statement in an affidavit amounts to perjury. The Supreme Court case of Soriano v. Cabais (G.R. No. 157175, June 21, 2007) clarifies that good faith is a complete defense to perjury and that the absence of probable cause warrants the dismissal of a criminal complaint.

The case also serves as an important reminder on procedural rules: appeals from Ombudsman resolutions in criminal cases must follow the proper remedy, or the case will be dismissed outright.

The Facts of the Case

Hilario P. Soriano was the President of the Rural Bank of San Miguel, Inc. (RBSM). Zenaida A. Cabais was the comptroller designated by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) to oversee the bank's operations. When RBSM was closed and placed under receivership, Soriano filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals.

During those proceedings, Cabais executed two affidavits. She stated that RBSM paid two entities—Forcecollect Professional Solution, Inc. and Surecollect Professional Solution, Inc.—amounts of P5.300 million and P5.750 million as collection fees, and that these were paid in cash via manager's checks on December 27 and 29, 1999.

Soriano filed a complaint for perjury against Cabais under Articles 183 and 184 of the Revised Penal Code, alleging that her statements were false.

The Issue: What Constitutes Probable Cause for Perjury?

The central question was whether the Office of the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the perjury complaint for lack of probable cause.

The Ombudsman found that the statements in Cabais's affidavits were supported by bank records. The issuance and payment of the checks were corroborated by certifications from RBSM accountants and a PDIC official. The Ombudsman concluded that Cabais had examined these records in her capacity as BSP comptroller and believed in good faith that her statements were true.

The Ruling: Good Faith Is a Defense to Perjury

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. The Court held that one essential element of perjury is a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood. This element was absent in Cabais's case.

The Court cited People v. Abaya (74 Phil. 59) for the principle that good faith is a defense in perjury. Since Cabais's statements were based on records she had personally reviewed, she had reasonable grounds to believe they were true. There was no intent to deceive.

The Court also emphasized that it will not interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of discretion in prosecutorial matters absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion. The Ombudsman's findings were supported by evidence and were not arbitrary or whimsical.

The Procedural Lesson: The Correct Remedy

The Court also addressed a procedural misstep. Soriano filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. The Court ruled this was the wrong remedy.

Under Fabian v. Desierto (G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998), appeals from Ombudsman decisions in administrative disciplinary cases go to the Court of Appeals. But for criminal cases, the proper remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed directly with the Supreme Court, as established in Estrada v. Desierto (G.R. No. 156160, December 9, 2004) and Acuña v. Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon (G.R. No. 144692, January 31, 2005).

Even if Soriano had filed the correct remedy, the Court noted the petition would still fail because there was no grave abuse of discretion.

Practical Takeaways

• Good faith defeats perjury. A person who makes a statement based on records or information they reasonably believe to be true cannot be convicted of perjury, even if the statement later proves inaccurate.
• Perjury requires willful falsehood. The prosecution must prove a deliberate intent to assert a falsehood, not merely a mistake or honest error.
• Know the correct remedy. Decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases are challenged through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court, not through an appeal to the Court of Appeals.
• The Ombudsman's discretion is respected. Courts will not disturb the Ombudsman's finding on probable cause unless there is clear evidence of grave abuse of discretion.
• Documentation matters. Affidavits supported by verifiable records are far less vulnerable to perjury challenges.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.