Falsely Accused of a Crime: What the Law Says

Article 363 reads:

In Campanano v. Datuin (2007), the Supreme Court listed three elements: the offender performs an act; by that act he directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the commission of a crime; and the act does not constitute perjury. The Court explained that the article 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."

No, not by itself. In Campanano, a person was accused under Article 363 for having filed a criminal complaint that the other side said was baseless. The Supreme Court held that the article "does not, however, contemplate the idea of malicious prosecution", meaning someone prosecuting or instigating a criminal charge in court. The complaint for incriminating an innocent person was dismissed.

When it is made under oath. Article 183 punishes a person who knowingly makes untruthful statements under oath, or in an affidavit, upon a material matter, before a person authorized to administer an oath, in cases where the law requires it. Since Republic Act No. 11594 (2021), the penalty is prision mayor in its minimum period, plus a fine of up to ₱1,000,000 and perpetual absolute disqualification from government positions. Article 363 itself excludes acts that are perjury. The elements and penalty are explained on the page on perjury in the Philippines.

It is a civil claim for damages, not a crime under the Revised Penal Code. In Marsman & Company v. Ligo (2015), the Supreme Court held that an employee who had been wrongly accused of criminal acts, illegally arrested and detained, presented to the media against his will, and prosecuted in an unfounded criminal suit was entitled to damages for malicious prosecution.

Quoting an earlier ruling, Magbanua v. Junsay, the decision listed four elements the person claiming damages must prove:

1. The prosecution happened, and the defendant was the prosecutor or instigated its start.
2. The criminal case finally ended with an acquittal.
3. The prosecutor acted without probable cause.
4. The prosecution was impelled by legal malice, meaning an improper or sinister motive.

The quoted passage also says that "the mere act of submitting a case to the authorities for prosecution does not make one liable for malicious prosecution." It names the Civil Code articles on human relations and on damages as the legal basis of the claim.

Not automatically. In Marsman, the Court agreed that "acquittal does not disprove the existence of probable cause." It then looked at why the employee was acquitted: the acquittal "was due to lack of evidence, which presupposes lack of probable cause." So the outcome of the criminal case is one fact among the four elements, and the court weighs all of them.

These are made-up examples to show how the rules work. They are not advice for any real case.

Rodel slips a missing office phone into a coworker's bag, then tells the manager to check her bag. His act directly points to an innocent person, and it is not perjury. This is the kind of act Article 363 covers.

Joy files a theft complaint against her neighbor, honestly believing he took her bicycle. The prosecutor dismisses it for lack of evidence. As in Campanano, filing a complaint is not by itself incriminating an innocent person.

Arnel signs a sworn affidavit falsely stating that he saw his rival steal a carabao. A false statement under oath may be perjury under Article 183.

Nestor was charged with estafa by a former employer, arrested and later acquitted for lack of evidence. Whether he has a claim for malicious prosecution depends on all four elements, including malice and the absence of probable cause, as the court finds them.

Talk to a lawyer if you were accused of a crime you did not commit, if you believe evidence was planted, if a sworn statement against you is false, or if you were acquitted and are thinking about damages. Each track has its own elements, and which one fits depends on the evidence. If you cannot afford a lawyer, see Free legal help in the Philippines for the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) and other options.