The perjury case filed by Sen. Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada against former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Bulacan assistant district engineer Brice Ericson D. Hernandez has been dismissed by the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office.

In his complaint, Estrada accused Hernandez of making false statements that alleged that the senator received kickbacks from anomalous government flood control projects.

In resolving the charge, the prosecutor’s office said: “This Office, after a judicious evaluation of the evidence on record, finds that the evidence fails to establish prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction for the crime of Perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.”

The 12-page resolution dated last Dec. 11 was signed by Assistant City Prosecutor Maria Emma Gille A. Mercado.

In his complaint, Estrada presented witnesses and his Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALNs) “to show no unexplained wealth.”

“The subsequent denials and the SALNs do not, by themselves, conclusively prove that the respondent (Hernandez) knew his statement was false at the moment he swore to it,” the resolution stated.

It also stated: “As the Supreme Court has held, the complainant must prove not only that the statement was false, but also that the defendant did not believe it to be true.”

At the same time, the prosecutor’s resolution stated that Hernandez has consistently maintained that he based his statements on his personal knowledge and involvement in the DPWH’s operations and that he believed these statements to be true at the time he made them.

“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,” it said.

Among his arguments, Estrada said that Hernandez had earlier denied involvement in the anomalies but was refuted by the testimony of contractor Sally Santos of Syms Construction.

“The complainant must prove which of the two statements is false and must show this evidence other than the contradicting statement itself, as two oaths simply neutralize each other,” the resolution stated.

Under the established doctrine, the resolution stated that “these contradictory statements alone are insufficient to establish perjury without independent, corroborative evidence of which specific statement was deliberately false.”