Contributed Photo

A Manila court has acquitted fashion designer Maria Mia Urquico-Malixi of perjury, finding that prosecutors failed to prove she intentionally made false statements under oath.

In a decision reportedly issued by a Regional Trial Court in Manila, Judge Dinnah Aguila-Topacio said the evidence did not meet the legal standard required for conviction.

The complaint was filed by her estranged husband, Anthony Malixi, and stemmed from their ongoing marital dispute.

After reviewing the case, the court found no clear proof that Urquico-Malixi “willfully and deliberately” made false statements—an essential element in perjury cases under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.

The court said the required intent for perjury was not established, adding that inconsistencies in statements, by themselves, do not automatically prove bad faith or intent to deceive.

Judge Aguila-Topacio also underscored the constitutional presumption of innocence, noting that the prosecution failed to overcome the high bar of proof required in criminal cases.

Why the ruling matters

Under Philippine law, perjury involves knowingly making false statements under oath on a material matter. Legal standards require proof that the act was done deliberately—not by mistake or misunderstanding.

This means that simple inconsistencies or conflicting statements are not enough to secure a conviction unless there is clear intent to mislead.

A case rooted in a personal dispute

The perjury complaint was tied to filings related to the couple’s marital conflict, which has reportedly led to multiple legal actions. While full details of those cases were not disclosed, the ruling effectively resolves the perjury charge.

For Urquico-Malixi, the decision marks a legal win in one part of a broader dispute. More broadly, it reinforces a key principle in the justice system: criminal liability must be based on clear and intentional wrongdoing—not just conflicting accounts.