Introduction

In the Philippine legal system, a conviction for grave threats under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) represents a serious criminal outcome, often stemming from allegations of intimidation or coercion that instill fear of harm. Once the accused is convicted, questions may arise regarding the accountability of witnesses who testified on their behalf. Specifically, can the complainant or aggrieved party pursue legal action against these defense witnesses for perjury or other liabilities if their testimony is believed to have been false? This article explores the intricacies of perjury as a crime, potential civil liabilities, procedural requirements, and limitations within the Philippine context. It draws on established provisions of the RPC, rules of court, and relevant jurisprudence to provide a comprehensive analysis.

Understanding Grave Threats Under Philippine Law

Grave threats are criminalized under Article 282 of the RPC, which penalizes any person who threatens another with a crime that would constitute a felony, without actually committing it, and in a manner that causes the victim to believe the threat will be carried out. The penalty varies depending on the gravity: if the threat is conditional or not serious, it may be treated as light threats under Article 283, but grave threats carry imprisonment ranging from arresto mayor to prision correccional.

In a typical grave threats case, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements: (1) the offender threatened another with infliction of a wrong amounting to a crime; (2) the threat was made in a serious manner; and (3) it was not subject to a condition (unless the condition is unlawful). Defense witnesses play a crucial role in rebutting these elements, often by providing alibis, character testimony, or alternative interpretations of events. If the accused is convicted despite their testimony, suspicions of falsehood may emerge, leading to inquiries about suing these witnesses.

The Crime of Perjury: Definition and Elements

Perjury is explicitly addressed in Article 183 of the RPC, which defines it as willfully and knowingly making untruthful statements under oath or affirmation in a judicial, administrative, or other official proceeding. The elements are:

The accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter.
The statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer authorized to receive and administer oaths.
The accused willfully and knowingly asserted as true something false.
The false statement concerned a material fact required by law.

For witnesses in a grave threats trial, perjury could apply if their testimony—given under oath in court—was deliberately false and material to the case. Materiality means the false statement could influence the outcome; for instance, a defense witness falsely claiming the accused was elsewhere during the alleged threat could be material.

Perjury is punishable by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period if the false testimony is in a judicial proceeding. If it's in a non-judicial context (e.g., affidavits), penalties may be lighter. Importantly, perjury is a separate offense from the main case, and a conviction in the grave threats trial does not automatically imply perjury by defense witnesses—each must be proven independently.

Pursuing Perjury Charges Against Defense Witnesses

After a grave threats conviction, the complainant can initiate perjury proceedings against the accused's witnesses, but this is not straightforward. Here's a breakdown:

Initiation of Perjury Complaint

Who Can File? Any person with knowledge of the perjury, including the complainant, prosecutor, or even the judge, can file a complaint. However, in practice, it's often the aggrieved party in the original case who pursues it.
Where to File? The complaint is filed with the Office of the Prosecutor (for preliminary investigation) or directly with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) or Regional Trial Court (RTC), depending on jurisdiction. Perjury falls under the RTC if the penalty exceeds six years; otherwise, MTC.
Evidence Required: The complainant must present prima facie evidence of falsehood, such as contradictory documents, witness recantations, or physical impossibilities. The original trial transcripts are key, as they record the sworn testimony.
Statute of Limitations: Under Article 90 of the RPC, perjury prescribes in 10 years from the date of commission.

Challenges in Proving Perjury

Proving perjury is notoriously difficult due to the high burden of showing "willful and knowing" falsehood. Mere inconsistencies in testimony may be attributed to memory lapses or honest mistakes, not deliberate lies. Philippine jurisprudence, such as in People v. Abaya (G.R. No. 112985, 1994), emphasizes that perjury requires clear evidence of intent to deceive, not just errors.

Additionally, the rule against double jeopardy doesn't apply here since perjury is a distinct crime. However, if the witness was acquitted in the main case based on their testimony, this might indirectly support their credibility, complicating perjury claims.

Judicial Precedents on Perjury in Criminal Trials

Supreme Court rulings provide guidance:

In People v. Aquino (G.R. No. 144340, 2003), the Court held that false testimony by a defense witness in a murder case warranted separate perjury prosecution, reinforcing that witnesses are not immune post-conviction.
Estrada v. Desierto (G.R. No. 146710-15, 2001) clarified that perjury in impeachment proceedings (analogous to trials) requires materiality and falsity proven beyond doubt.
Cases like People v. Reyes (G.R. No. 101485, 1993) illustrate that recanted testimony can trigger perjury if the recantation admits prior falsehood, but courts view recantations suspiciously.

Civil Liability: Suing for Damages

Beyond criminal perjury, civil remedies may be available against false witnesses.

Basis for Civil Action

Under Article 32 of the Civil Code, any public officer or employee (or private individual) who violates or obstructs civil rights can be liable for damages. More relevantly, Article 26 protects against acts that, though not criminal, cause moral suffering, such as false testimony leading to prolonged litigation or emotional distress.

If perjury is established, the complainant can file a civil suit for moral, actual, or exemplary damages under Articles 2217-2220 of the Civil Code. For instance:

Moral Damages: For anxiety, besmirched reputation, or mental anguish caused by the false testimony.
Actual Damages: Reimbursement for legal fees or lost income due to the extended trial.
Exemplary Damages: To deter similar conduct, especially if malice is shown.

Independent Civil Action

Per Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, civil liability arising from a crime (like perjury) is deemed instituted with the criminal case unless reserved. However, for quasi-delicts (torts) under Article 2176, a separate civil suit can be filed independently. In Capulong v. Alino (G.R. No. L-19565, 1965), the Court allowed damages against a perjurious witness for abuse of rights.

Limitations and Defenses

Absolute Privilege: Witnesses enjoy immunity from libel/slander for courtroom statements (Article 354, RPC), but this doesn't extend to perjury or civil damages if malice is proven.
Prescription: Civil actions prescribe in 4-10 years, depending on the basis (Article 1144-1146, Civil Code).
Burden of Proof: Preponderance of evidence, lower than criminal's beyond reasonable doubt.

Procedural Considerations and Ethical Implications

Subpoena and Contempt

If suspicions arise during the trial, the court can cite witnesses for contempt under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court for refusing to testify truthfully. Post-conviction, however, this is rare.

Role of the Prosecutor

The fiscal may motu proprio investigate perjury if evident from the record, as per Department of Justice guidelines.

Ethical Duties

Lawyers suborning perjury face disbarment under the Code of Professional Responsibility (Canon 10). Witnesses, if professionals, may face administrative sanctions.

Potential Outcomes and Strategic Advice

Successful perjury convictions against defense witnesses are uncommon but not impossible, as seen in cases where incontrovertible evidence (e.g., video contradictions) emerges. Outcomes may include imprisonment, fines, and civil awards, serving as deterrence.

Strategically, complainants should gather robust evidence before filing to avoid counter-suits for malicious prosecution under Article 20 of the Civil Code. Consulting legal counsel is essential to navigate these complexities.

Conclusion

In the Philippines, suing the accused's witnesses after a grave threats conviction is feasible through perjury charges and civil suits for damages, grounded in the RPC and Civil Code. However, the process demands meticulous proof of deliberate falsehood and materiality, amid evidentiary hurdles and legal protections. This framework balances witness protection with accountability, ensuring justice in adversarial proceedings.