To incriminate an innocent person is to perform an act which tends directly to cause a false prosecution.
1. Concept
Incriminating innocent person – refers to the performing of an act which tends directly to cause a false prosecution.
a. Legal basis
Article 363. Incriminating innocent person. – Any person who, by any act not constituting perjury, shall directly incriminate or impute to an innocent person the commission of a crime, shall be punished by arresto menor.
(NB: If the article has been amended by legislation or has been the subject of Supreme Court decision which may have impacted how it is interpreted, do let us know so we can consider for the next update of this article. You may send it via: Feedback.)
2. Mode of commission
The following is the mode of committing the offense:
• To directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the commission of a crime
a. Mode: To incriminate or impute
Elements of the offense:
1) The offender performs an act;
2) By such act he directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the commission of a crime; and
3) Such act does not constitute perjury. (Datuin v. Campano, Jr., G.R. No. 172142, October 17, 2007, Per Carpio Morales, J.)
1) Element 1: Act
The offender must perform an act or do an act.
Thus, the offense does not contemplate omission or non-performance of an act.
2) Element 2: Incrimination or Imputation
The offender should directly incriminate or impute to an innocent person the commission of a crime. Meaning, the offender should not mince words and say it out directly as opposed to suggestions (e.g., blind item) or implying the same.
3) Element 3: Not perjury
The act of incrimination or imputation must not constitute perjury; if it does constitute perjury, then the proper offense would perjury, not incriminating innocent persons.
Ventura v. Bernabe, En Banc, G.R. No. L-26760, April 30, 1971, Per Barredo, J.:
• Appellants do not pretend, neither have they alleged in their complaint that appellee has planted evidence against them. At the most, what appellee is alleged to have done is that he had filed the criminal complaint above-quoted against appellant Joaquina Ventura without justifiable cause or motive and had caused the same to be prosecuted, with him (appellee) testifying falsely as witness for the prosecution. These acts do not constitute incriminatory machination, particularly, because Article 363 of the Revised Penal Code punishing said crime expressly excludes perjury as a means of committing the same.
3. Things to note
The following are some additional things to note about this offense.
a. Malicious prosecution, not contemplated
Article 363 [on incriminating innocent persons] does not, however, contemplate the idea of malicious prosecution – someone prosecuting or instigating a criminal charge in court. It refers “to the acts of PLANTING evidence and the like, which do not in themselves constitute false prosecution but tend directly to cause false prosecutions.” (Datuin v. Campano, Jr., supra.; Ventura v. Bernabe, supra.)
[T]here is no such crime of malicious prosecution in the Revised Penal Code. (Ventura v. Bernabe, supra.)
b. Act which tend directly to cause a false prosecution
In the old Codigo Penal, what was punished was the very imputation made before an administrative or judicial officer; however, in the Revised Penal Code, what is punished is the act which tends directly to cause a false prosecution.
People v. Rivera, En Banc, G.R. Nos. L-38215, 38216, December 22, 1933, Per Butte, J.:
• Article 326 of the Codigo Penal does not appear in the Revised Penal Code, which contains no offense denominated “acusacion o denuncia falsa” or its equivalent. But the Solicitor-General contends that article 363 of the Revised Penal Code should be construed to embrace the crime of false accusation or complaint as formerly penalized under article 326 of the Codigo Penal.
• As article 363 of the Revised Penal Code is new and this is the first case before the court calling for its interpretation, a comparison of the article with article 326 of the former Penal Code seems expedient in view of the argument of the Government that the former “is a reproduction of both the crime of false accusation or complaint and the crime of calumny described under said article 326 and article 452 of the old Penal Code.”
• Comparing now article 363 of the Revised Penal Code with article 326 of the Revised Penal Code, it will be observed that under article 326 of the former Penal Code, the gravamen of the offense is the imputation itself when made before an administrative or judicial officer, whereas in article 363 of the Revised Penal Code the gravamen of the offense is performing an act which “tends directly” to such an imputation. Article 326 of the old Penal Code punishes false prosecutions whereas article 363 of the Revised Penal Code punishes any act which may tend directly to cause a false prosecution.
• It is well settled law that where the text of a statute is clear, it is improper to resort to a caption or title to make it obscure. Such secondary sources may be resorted to in order to remove, not to create doubt.
References
• Title XIII – Crimes Against Honor, Act No. 3815, Revised Penal Code
—
/Updated: May 20, 2023
