US v.

Pablo
En Banc 1916

Policeman Andres Pablo raided a jueteng game. He excluded from his testimony two other accused in exchange for money
(20PHP). This was discovered by the provincial fiscal so he was charged with perjury in violation of Arts. 318 – 324 of the
Penal Code. His defense was that such articles were already repealed and so no crime of perjury existed when he committed
the assailed act. The court convicted him nonetheless, saying that the repeal was merely implied and as such the
subsequent repeal of the repealing law, in effect, reinstated the validity of the articles.

(Art 318 – 324 was repealed impliedly by Act 1697. Act 1697 was repealed by the Administrative Code)

DOCTRINE
An old law which is impliedly repealed by a newer law, after such newer law is subsequently repealed by another law
(newest law), becomes re-enacted and becomes effective again.

FACTS
1. Andres Pablo, a policeman of Balanga, went to the barrio of Tuyo to raid a jueteng game; but before the said officer
arrived there the players left and ran away.
2. He was able to recover on his arrival a low table, a tambiolo (receptacle) and 37 bolas (balls). Said officer also saw the
men Maximo Malicsi and Antonio Rodrigo left but he only arrested Francisco Dato. This information was contained in
his report to his chief who immediately filed a complaint in the court of justice of the peace against Rodrigo, Malicsi, and
Dato for illegal gambling in violation of municipal ordinance No. 5.
3. Pablo testified under oath that on a particular date he and a companion raided a jueteng game, and that when they
arrived at the place they saw Dato and a low table that made them suspect that a jueteng game was being held; that
they did find a tambiolo and 37 bolas, but that they did not see Rodrigo and Malicsi on the scene nor did they see them
run away; and that only after the incident that they learned of Rodrigo and malicsi as being the ringleaders of the said
jueteng game according to a source.
4. COURT: This testimony was acted upon by the court acquitting the defendants Rodrigo and Malicsi and sentenced only
Dato.
5. The provincial fiscal investigated further on the case and found out that before the case came to trial in the justice of
the peace, Pablo had already talked with the accused Malicsi and Rodrigo and agreed that he would exclude the
involvement of the two in the case in exchange of a bribe of fifteen pesos. This conference was held in the house of
Valentin Sioson.
6. Because of this development, the provincial fiscal filed a complaint with the CFI charging Andres Pablo with the crime
of perjury in violation of section 3 of Act No. 1697 declaring that he willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously affirmed and
swore under oath in legal form before the justice of the peace during the hearing of the case of Rodrigo and Malicsi
for violation of Municipal Ordinance No. 5 of the municipality of Balanga when he excluded the two accused from
involvement in the incident despite being utterly false and material to the decision of the case.
7. When the court found him guilty and sentenced to suffer years imprisonment, a fine, and disqualification to hold public
office as well as from testifying in Philippine courts, he appealed the judgment.

ISSUE with HOLDING

1. Whether or not the respondent is guilty of the crime of perjury or of false testimony under art. 318 to 324 of the Revised
Penal Code?

Pablo: No, because Penal Code Articles 318 to 324 had already been repealed by Act 1697

Court: Yes. Pablo is guilty of such crime under Article 318 to 324 of the penal code since such articles are still in force.
This is so because these were not expressly repealed by the Revised Administrative Code when it repealed Act No.
1697.

Law 11, Title 2, Book 3, of the Novisima Recopilacion states that, “All laws… not expressly repealed by other subsequent
laws, must be literally obeyed and the excuse that they are not in use cannot avail.”

Said articles of the Penal Code are in force and are properly applicable to crimes of false testimony. In the present case,
the proven evidence showed that Andres Pablo falsely testified before the court by perverting the truth in favor of the
alleged gamblers, Maximo Malicsi and Antonio Rodrigo and in receiving bribe from the said accused which aggravated
1
 the crime – proof showed he received P15 in order that he exclude the two ringleaders in his sworn testimony. The
court held that, “in the commission of the crime of false testimony, there concurred the aggravating circumstance of
price or reward, No. 3 of article 10 of the Code, with no mitigating circumstance to offset the effects of the said
aggravating one; wherefore the defendant has incurred the maximum period of the penalty of arresto mayor in its
maximum degree to prision correccional in its medium degree, and a fine.”

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Appeal not granted. Conviction upheld.

DIGESTER: Dulay