It seems a lot of lawyers don't really understand what a solemn affirmation is. Following is an order I recently released that discusses the solemn affirmation in some detail.
These cases are before this Court upon two informations filed by the prosecution charging the accused with perjury.
The accused is alleged to have filled up two Personal Data Sheets (Civil Service Forms 212) indicating therein that he is a Filipino citizen even though he is actually a citizen of the United States of America.
Finding during pre-trial that the Personal Data Sheets had not been sworn to before a solemnizing officer, the Court directed the prosecution to submit a position paper to justify bringing the accused to trial.
In its position paper, the prosecution cites as precedent the cases of U.S. vs. Tupasi Molina, People vs. Cruz and Diaz vs. People. These cases do little to support the prosecution’s stand on the issue for they all have to do with statements that were made under oath.
To put the matter in black and white, all the prosecution had to establish was whether or not the accused had made his statements under a solemn affirmation in lieu of an oath. In bringing this case to Court, the prosecution may have misunderstood what exactly a solemn affirmation is.
The prosecution seems to be suffering from the impression that a solemn affirmation is the absence of an oath, when a person otherwise required to swear to the truth of his statements, cannot in conscience take one. Such a simplistic interpretation of the law, however, cannot be adopted by this Court.
A solemn affirmation is;
“A solemn declaration made under the penalties of perjury by a person who conscientiously declines taking an oath.”[1]
“An affirmation is a solemn declaration or assertion that an affidavit is true, that the witness will tell the truth, this being substituted for an oath in certain cases.”[2]
Being a solemn declaration, it is necessary that it be made before a person authorized to administer oaths or solemn affirmations.
“It is evidenced by a jurat properly taken before a duly authorized officer.”[3]
A solemn affirmation therefore, is exactly the same as an oath, except for the fact that it is;
“A solemn statement which omits any religious reference and is by statute equivalent to an oath. The falsity of an affirmation is perjury.”[4]
so that;
“The words, ““So help me God”” are omitted in an affirmation.”[5]
It is not, as the prosecution apparently believes, the omission altogether, of any assertion that a person otherwise required to take an oath, is telling the truth. What is omitted is only any reference to God as in an oath so that the constitutional rights of those who are conscientiously scrupulous about taking one are not violated.
The intent of the second paragraph of Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines is to make clear that a solemn affirmation carries the same weight before the law as an oath, as an oath;
“Xx involves the idea of calling on God to witness what is averred as truth, and it is supposed to be accompanied with an invocation of His vengeance, or a renunciation of His favor, in the event of falsehood.” [6]
and an affirmation on the other hand does not quite carry the same weight with those who choose not to take an oath.
The Personal Data Sheets accompanying the two informations before this Court are without jurats or any other indication that the accused made assertions before a solemnizing officer that his entries in the forms were truthful. That he made such an assertion is the very essence of the felony with which he is charged in both informations. There is, therefore, no cause to hold him for trial.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Webster’s Third New International Dictionary
[2] 67 C.J.S. §3, 1950 p.5 citing 23 Black L.D. in turn citing 46 C.J. p.839 note 39
[3] Ibid., §7, p.9
[4] Sibal, Philippine Legal Dictionary, 1986
[5] Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, Vol. II, 1987 ed.
[6] Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Vol. II, 15th ed.
0 comments:
Post a Comment