In the case of Hilario P. Soriano v. Zenaida A. Cabais, the Supreme Court addressed the proper recourse for challenging the Ombudsman’s resolutions in criminal cases, particularly concerning perjury charges. The Court affirmed that when questioning the Ombudsman’s finding of a lack of probable cause in a criminal complaint, the correct remedy is a petition for certiorari filed directly with the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeals. This decision emphasizes the importance of demonstrating grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman and reinforces the principle that good faith can serve as a valid defense against perjury accusations.

When Truth is Questioned: Examining the Elements of Perjury in Affidavit Statements

This case originated from a perjury complaint filed by Hilario P. Soriano, the President of Rural Bank of San Miguel, Inc. (RBSM), against Zenaida A. Cabais, a comptroller designated by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). The complaint stemmed from two affidavits executed by Cabais during proceedings related to the closure and receivership of RBSM. Soriano alleged that Cabais made false statements in her affidavits, specifically regarding payments made by RBSM to certain entities owned or controlled by Soriano and other RBSM officers.

The Office of the Ombudsman, after review, dismissed Soriano’s complaint, finding no probable cause to indict Cabais for perjury. The Ombudsman’s decision was based on the determination that Cabais’s statements in her affidavits were supported by RBSM records and that she acted in good faith, believing her statements to be true. Soriano then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed based on the grounds that the appellate court’s jurisdiction is limited to administrative disciplinary cases from the Ombudsman, citing Fabian v. Desierto.

The Supreme Court, in resolving the matter, reiterated the established principle that appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the Court clarified that this rule does not apply to criminal or non-administrative cases. In such instances, particularly when challenging the Ombudsman’s finding of lack of probable cause, the proper remedy is a petition for certiorari filed with the Supreme Court, as outlined in Estrada v. Desierto and Acuña v. Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon.

The Court emphasized that even if Soriano had pursued the correct remedy by filing a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, his case would still fail. This is because the records did not demonstrate that the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the perjury complaint. The Ombudsman’s decision was based on a thorough review of the evidence and a reasoned determination that Cabais’s statements were either true or made in good faith, supported by RBSM records.

The ruling in this case underscores the essential elements of perjury, as defined in Articles 183 and 184 of the Revised Penal Code. One critical element is the willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood. The Court, citing People of the Philippines v. Abaya, reiterated that good faith is a valid defense against perjury charges. In this context, good faith means that the person making the statement honestly believes it to be true at the time it is made, even if it is later proven to be false.

The Supreme Court’s decision also reinforces the principle of non-interference with the investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman, absent any compelling reason or evidence of grave abuse of discretion. As the Court noted in Nava v. National Bureau of Investigation, it is beyond the purview of the Court to review the exercise of discretion by the Ombudsman in prosecuting or dismissing complaints. This independence is crucial for the Ombudsman to act as the champion of the people and preserve the integrity of the public service.

Furthermore, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of carefully examining the basis for perjury accusations and ensuring that all elements of the crime are present before initiating legal proceedings. The Court’s emphasis on good faith as a defense underscores the need to consider the speaker’s state of mind and the context in which the statement was made.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision in Soriano v. Cabais clarifies the procedural remedies available to challenge resolutions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal cases, reiterates the elements of perjury, and reinforces the principle of non-interference with the Ombudsman’s investigatory and prosecutorial powers. The Court’s ruling highlights the importance of demonstrating grave abuse of discretion and the validity of good faith as a defense against perjury accusations.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was the proper remedy for challenging the Ombudsman’s resolution dismissing a criminal complaint for perjury, specifically when questioning the lack of probable cause. The Court clarified that a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court is the correct procedure.
What is the correct remedy when the Ombudsman finds no probable cause in a criminal case?	When the Ombudsman finds a lack of probable cause in a criminal case, the aggrieved party must file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. This is distinct from administrative cases where appeals are made to the Court of Appeals.
What is required to successfully challenge the Ombudsman’s decision?	To successfully challenge the Ombudsman’s decision, the petitioner must demonstrate that the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. This requires showing that the decision was arbitrary or whimsical.
What is the role of ‘good faith’ in a perjury case?	Good faith is a valid defense in a perjury case. If the person making the allegedly false statement honestly believed it to be true at the time it was made, even if it is later proven false, they cannot be convicted of perjury.
What is the significance of the Fabian v. Desierto case?	Fabian v. Desierto established that appeals from the Ombudsman’s decisions in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review. This case is often cited to differentiate the proper appeals process for administrative versus criminal cases handled by the Ombudsman.
What is the effect of the Court’s non-interference policy with the Ombudsman?	The Court’s policy of non-interference means that it generally refrains from reviewing the Ombudsman’s decisions unless there is compelling evidence of grave abuse of discretion. This policy respects the independence and authority of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute cases.
What evidence supported the Ombudsman’s decision in this case?	The Ombudsman’s decision was supported by RBSM records, certifications from bank officials, and the fact that Cabais, as the BSP Comptroller, had access to and relied upon these records. This indicated that her statements were either true or made in good faith.
What are the key elements of perjury under the Revised Penal Code?	Under Articles 183 and 184 of the Revised Penal Code, the key elements of perjury include making a false statement under oath, on a material matter, with willful and deliberate intent to assert a falsehood. The absence of any of these elements can lead to dismissal of the charge.

The Soriano v. Cabais case provides valuable insights into the procedural and substantive aspects of perjury cases, particularly those involving public officials and the Office of the Ombudsman. Understanding these principles is essential for navigating the complexities of Philippine law and ensuring that justice is served fairly and effectively.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: HILARIO P. SORIANO VS. ZENAIDA A. CABAIS, G.R. NO. 157175, June 21, 2007