People v. Capistrano, 40 Phil. 902

FACTS: Accused-appellant Barbara Capistrano stated under oath two contradictory statement: one before the Assistant prosecutor who conducted the preliminary investigation before filing the information against her father Alejo Capistrano for Rape, statement whereby she was accusing the latter of the said crime; and another before the Court of first instance at the hearing of the same cause for rape, saying that the one call Juan Sol, and that for her fear to the latter who had threatened her, she made the former statement before the fiscal imputing the commission of the crime to his father. In view thereof, the fiscal filed a case against her for the crime of perjury.ISSUE: WON the two contradictory sworn statement are enough to convict the accused of perjury.HELD: The Court ruled that in order to hold the accused guilty of the crime of perjury, it was necessary to prove that she did not believe said testimony as true or, what amounts to the same thing, that which she testified to before the CFI was not true.A conviction for perjury cannot be sustained merely upon the contradictory sworn statement of the accused, but the prosecution must prove which of the two statements is false and must show that statement to be false by other evidence that the contradictory statement. One who is thus accused for having given under oath a statement contradictory to the one given in a former examination, has the right to prove that the statement formerly given by him was induced by threats and duress.DIAZ vs. PEOPLE, 191 SCRA 86Facts: Petitioner Reolandi Diaz was charged with the crime of Falsification of Official Document beforethe Court of first Instance of Pampanga. He was found guilty as charged. On appeal, the court modified its decision increasing the penalty of the accused. Hence this petition. The facts of thecase are as follows:Reolandi Diaz was a Senior Clerk at Jose Abad Santos High School in San Fernando Pampanga.He sought appointment as School Administrative Assistant I, and as one of the requirements to said appointment, he filled up Civil Service Form 212 and swore to the truth and veracity of the date andinformationthereinthat hishighest educational attainmentwas Fourth YearA.B.(Liberal Arts) allegedly pursued at the Cosmopolitan and Harvardian Colleges. On that basis, he was appointed to the position. But contrary to the claim of petitioner, he was never enrolled at the Cosmopolitan Colleges certified by its Registrar, neither was he a student at the Harvardian Colleges, certified by the schools president. The name of the petitioner was not also included in all theenrollment lists of college students submitted to thethen Bureau of Private Schools.Issues: Whether the accused is guilty of falsification.Held: The court held that the crime committed was not falsification but Perjury, which is the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under oath or affirmation administered by authority of law on a material matter. The elements of which are; a) 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 the statement or affidavit, the accused made a deliberate assertion of a falsehood; d.) that the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legalpurpose. All the elements enumerated therein are present in the case at bar,thus the accused is guilty ofperjury.The decision of Court of Appeals wasmodified, finding the accused guilty of perjury, imposing the corresponding penalty therein andnot of falsification.

OUANO vs. CA, 188 SCRA 799Facts: The appellate proceedings at bar treat of a parcel of landregistered under RFC (DBP). Said property was offered for bidding for the second time because the first bidding was nullified due to Ouanos protest. It appears that prior to the second bidding, Ouano and Echavez orally agreed that only Echavez would make a bid, and that if it was accepted, they would divide the property in proportion to their adjoining properties. To ensure success of their enterprise, they also agreed to induce the only other party known to be interested in the property-a group headed by a Mrs. Bonsucan to desist from presenting a bid.They broached the matter to Mrs. Bonsucan's group. The latter agreed to withdraw, as it did in fact withdraw from the sale; and Ouano's wife paid it P2,000 as reimbursement for its expenses. Issue: Whether Ouano committed machinations in public auction punishable under the RPC.Held: These acts constitute a crime, as the Trial Court has stressed. Ouano and Echavez had promised to share in the property in question as a consideration for Ouano's refraining from taking part in the public auction, and they had attempted to cause and in fact succeeded in causing another bidder to stay away from the auction. in order to cause reduction of the price of the property auctioned In so doing, they committed the felony ofmachinations in public auctionsdefined and penalized in Article 185 of the Revised Penal Code,supra.That both Ouano and Echavez did these acts is a matter of record, as is the fact that thereby only one bid that of Echavez was entered for the 'land in consequence of which Echavez eventually acquired it. The agreement therefore being criminal in character, the parties not only have no action against each other but are both liable to prosecution and the things and price of their agreement subject to disposal according to the provisions of the criminal code. This, in accordance with the so-calledpari delictoprinciple set out in the Civil Code.

US vs Kyburz, 28 PHIL 475FACTS: Kyburz, the defendant and appellant in this case, was convicted in the court below of a violation of section 6 ofAct No. 666of the Philippine Commission, which defines and penalizes the fraudulent use of trade-marks and trade names, and was sentenced to pay a fine P200. The information charges the commission of the alleged offense, Kyburz, with intent to defraud the public and the firm of Greilsammer Hermanos, did then and there unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously use the word Meridian on cards placed on in connection with his watches, for the purpose of selling the same as genuine Meridian watches, at his place of business, the said Manila Jewelry Store and with the intention of the making purchasers believe that the said watches thus offered for sale and sold by Kyburz, were genuine Meridian watches when in truth and inn fact they were watches of some other make, to the damage and prejudice of the aforesaid Greilsammer Hermanos. The first contention of counsel for appellant is that the trial court in holding Kyburz criminally responsible for the acts of his employees in the Manila Jewelry Store in offering for sake and in selling watches under the trade name of Meridian watches. It is urged that the trial court erred in holding that Kyburz directed or authorized the action erred in holding that Kyburz directed or authorized the action of his employees in the Manila Jewelry Store, in view of the positive denials of that fact by both Kyburz and the clerk who made the sale. Counsel insists that since defendant did not place the trade-mark or trade name on the watches sold by him, he cannot be held liable for an infringement of the penal provisions. It is further contended that the evidence does not disclose a violation of the penal provisions of section 6 of the Act because it does not appear that the public was in fact deceived as to the quality of the watches purchased form the defendant, the watches sold by the defendant and the complaining company having been made by the same manufacturer, and being in fact of exactly the same standard and quality. It is to be observed, however, that the statute penalizes the use of trade-marks and trade names with intent to defraudeitherthe public or the owner of such trade-mark or trade nameISSUE: WON defendant should be liable for selling watches under the trade of Meridian watchesHELD: Trade names are protected against use or imitation upon the ground of unfair competition, and an examination of the statute clearly indicates its purpose to protect the manufacturer or dealer as well as the public. Nothing that has been said should be construed as a holding that Greilsammer Hermanos have ab exclusive right to sell watches of the make or standard of those on which they engrave their trade-mark, and which are thereafter sold by them under the trade name of Meridian watches. There is nothing in the record which would indicate that, by contract with the manufacturer or otherwise, they have acquired any such exclusive right in and to this make of watches or in and to their sale. We hold only that no person is entitled in these Islands to sell watches, whether of the same make and quality as those of the defendant or of any other make and quality, under the trade name of Meridian watches, which by adoption and user has become the property of Greilsammer Hermanos. With the infinity of distinguishing names, marks and signs which are subject to the use and appropriation of makers and dealers in watches, the use of the trade name Meridian by any other firm than Greilsammer Hermanos can have but one reasonable explanation, and that is the intent to take advantage of the favorable opinion formed by the public of the quality and standard of the watches sold by that firm under the trade name adopted by it for advertising purposes, and as a guaranty to the public that such watches have passed through its hands and are up to the standard set by it for watches advertised and sold as Meridian watches. PEOPLE vs PADOL, 68 PHIL 365Facts:Issue:Held: