In a significant legal development, the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office has officially dismissed the perjury charges filed by Senator Jinggoy Estrada against former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) district engineer Brice Hernandez. The decision cited a lack of sufficient evidence to move forward with the prosecution.
The Core of the Dispute
The legal battle began in October after Hernandez testified during a Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing. During the proceedings, Hernandez alleged that Senator Estrada had received millions of pesos in kickbacks from various flood control projects.
In response to these claims, Estrada filed four counts of perjury, asserting that Hernandez had lied under oath. To bolster his case and prove the allegations were unfounded, the senator submitted his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) as evidence of his financial transparency.
The Prosecutor’s Ruling
Despite Estrada’s efforts, a 12-page resolution from the prosecutor’s office concluded that the senator failed to establish the “reasonable evidence” necessary to convict Hernandez under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code.
The prosecutor emphasized that the crime of perjury requires more than just a statement being incorrect. The key findings include:
- Absence of Malice: The office found that Estrada did not substantiate the “malicious intent” required for a perjury conviction.
- Whistleblower Intent: Hernandez maintained that his allegations were based on personal knowledge and his direct involvement in DPWH operations. This suggested he believed his statements were true at the time they were made.
- Knowledge of Falsehood: The resolution noted that providing a SALN does not automatically prove that the respondent knew his statement was false when he swore to it.
Legal Standards for Perjury
The resolution highlighted a critical legal standard upheld by the Supreme Court: a complainant must prove not only that a statement was false but also that the defendant did not believe it to be true.
The prosecutor remarked that while Hernandez’s statements could be viewed as “inaccurate, reckless, or made with poor motives,” they did not meet the threshold of legal malice. Without independent, corroborative evidence showing a deliberate attempt to deceive, contradictory statements alone are insufficient to sustain a perjury charge.
Ultimately, the dismissal underscores the high burden of proof required in cases involving public testimony and whistleblower allegations within the Philippine justice system.