DOJ dismisses Jinggoy Estrada's perjury raps vs. DPWH engineer
The Department of Justice has dismissed the perjury charges filed by Sen. Jinggoy Estrada against former Department of Public Works and Highways district engineer Brice Hernandez due to a lack of evidence.
Estrada filed a perjury complaint against Hernandez in October, accusing the latter of making false statements under oath and deliberately making up lies to harm his name and reputation. This came after Hernandez named Estrada and Joel Villanueva as senators who were involved in a kickback scheme in the anomalous flood control projects.
In its 12-page resolution dated Dec. 11, the Quezon City prosecutor ruled that Estrada's evidence is not strong enough to clearly show that the crime of perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code was committed.
The prosecutor said that although Estrada submitted his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth to show no unexplained wealth, the alleged kickbacks were based on Hernandez's claimed personal knowledge and belief at the time, and did not constitute a willful falsehood.
“His defense that he was acting as a whistleblower, recounting what he understood to be the standard operating procedure based on his position and the information conveyed to him, remains plausible. The subsequent denials and the SALNs do not, by themselves, conclusively prove that the respondent knew his statement was false at the moment he swore to it,” it added.
The prosecutor said the Supreme Court requires the complainant to prove both that the statement was false and that the defendant knew it was untrue.
It added that “these contradictory statements alone are insufficient to establish perjury without independent, corroborative evidence of which specific statement was deliberately false."
The resolution stated that while Hernandez's statements may have been inaccurate or with ill intent, there is no sufficient evidence that he acted with the malice required for perjury.
“While the respondent's statements may have been inaccurate, reckless, or made with poor motives, the evidence on record does not sufficiently demonstrate that he made them with the evil intent and legal malice that perjury requires. The respondent's position as a cooperating witness, providing information based on his role within the alleged corruption scheme, provides a context where good faith belief, however misplaced, can reasonably exist,” the resolution read, concluding that the complaint is dismissed.
