Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 480 views

    Us V Tupasi Molina

    Uploaded by

    Marion Nerisse Kho
    The defendant was charged with perjury for making a false declaration under oath when applying to be a municipal police officer. He claimed to not have a criminal record, but was previously convicted of disturbing the peace. The lower court found him guilty under Section 3 of Act 1697, which prohibits perjury in official investigations. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that regulations prepared by the Director of Constabulary under Act 2169, which governs the municipal police, have the force of law. These regulations require police applicants to not have a criminal record. Therefore, the defendant's false statement violated Section 3, and the lower court properly applied the law in finding him guilty of perjury.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Us V Tupasi Molina

    Uploaded by

    Marion Nerisse Kho
    480 views1 page
    The defendant was charged with perjury for making a false declaration under oath when applying to be a municipal police officer. He claimed to not have a criminal record, but was previously convicted of disturbing the peace. The lower court found him guilty under Section 3 of Act 1697, which prohibits perjury in official investigations. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that regulations prepared by the Director of Constabulary under Act 2169, which governs the municipal police, have the force of law. These regulations require police applicants to not have a criminal record. Therefore, the defendant's false statement violated Section 3, and the lower court properly applied the law in finding him guilty of perjury.

    Original Description:

    Us v Tupasi Molina

    Original Title

    Us v Tupasi Molina

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The defendant was charged with perjury for making a false declaration under oath when applying to be a municipal police officer. He claimed to not have a criminal record, but was previously convicted of disturbing the peace. The lower court found him guilty under Section 3 of Act 1697, which prohibits perjury in official investigations. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that regulations prepared by the Director of Constabulary under Act 2169, which governs the municipal police, have the force of law. These regulations require police applicants to not have a criminal record. Therefore, the defendant's false statement violated Section 3, and the lower court properly applied the law in finding him guilty of perjury.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    480 views1 page

    Us V Tupasi Molina

    Uploaded by

    Marion Nerisse Kho
    The defendant was charged with perjury for making a false declaration under oath when applying to be a municipal police officer. He claimed to not have a criminal record, but was previously convicted of disturbing the peace. The lower court found him guilty under Section 3 of Act 1697, which prohibits perjury in official investigations. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that regulations prepared by the Director of Constabulary under Act 2169, which governs the municipal police, have the force of law. These regulations require police applicants to not have a criminal record. Therefore, the defendant's false statement violated Section 3, and the lower court properly applied the law in finding him guilty of perjury.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    US V TUPASI MOLINA

    FACTS:
    Frank Tupasi Molina was charged of a crime of perjury, in violation of Section 3,Act no. 1697, when defendant signed
    a petition to be permitted to take the examination for the position of municipal policeman and made a false
    declaration under oath that he was qualified to the examinations for municipal police and have not been charged of
    any crime
    During trial, prosecution presentedevidence that the defendant wassentenced and imprisoned for disturbing public
    peace.
    Defendant argues that said Act was not applicable in the present case since this Act was only authorizing the
    appointment of commissioners, to make official investigations, fixing their powers,
    for thepayment of witness fees, and for thepunishment of perjury in officialinvestigations
    ISSUE:
    WON lower court committed error in applying section 3 of Act 1697.
    Held:
    No. Under Section 3 of Act No. 1697 it provides that: Any person who, having taken an oath before a competent
    tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the Philippine Islands authorizes an oath
    to be administered,that he will testify, declare, depose, orcertify truly, or that any writtentestimony, declaration, deposi
    tion orcertificate by him subscribed is true,willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter
    which he does not believe to be true, is guilty or perjury, and shall be punished, etc.
    Act No. 2169, provides for the reorganization of the municipal police
    of the municipalities or provinces andsubprovinces, it further provides that,subject to the approval of the Secretary of
    Commerce and Police, the Director
    of Constabulary shall prepare generalregulations for the good government,discipline, and inspection of the municipal
    police, "compliance where with shall be obligatory for all members of the organization.
    Section 9 of said Act provides that: "To be eligible for examination, a candidate shall have the following
    requirements: . . . (6) Have no criminal record.
    In accordance with the requirements
    of said law, the Director of Constabularyprepared an examination manual,prescribing at the same time rules forcondu
    cting examinations, whichexamination manual was approved bythe Secretary of Commerce and Police, and thereby
    was given the force of law. We have, therefore, a law which authorizes the administration of an oath in the present
    case.
    A violation of a regulation prescribed by an executive officer of the Government
    inconformity with and based upon astatute authorizing such regulation,
    constitutes an offense and renders theoffender liable to punishment inaccordance with the provisions of law.
    In the very nature of things in manycases it becomes impracticable for the
    legislative department of theGovernment to provide generalregulations for the various andvarying details for the
    management of a particular department of the Government.
    It therefore becomes convenient for the legislative department of the Government, by law, in a most general way, to
    provide for the conduct, control, and management of the work
    of the particular department of theGovernment; to authorize certainpersons, in charge of the management,
    control, and direction of the particular department, to adopt certain rules and regulations providing for the detail of the
    management and control of such department. Such regulations have uniformly been held to have the force of law,
    whenever they are found to be in consonance and in harmony with the general purposes and objects of the law.
    We held in the many cases that said section 3 was a provision punishing the crime of perjury generally. We find no
    reason, either in law or in the argument of the appellant in the present case, to modify or reverse our conclusions in
    that case. The defendant was guilty of the crime charged.

    You might also like