THIRD DIVISION
ALFONSO C. CHOA,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
142011
March 14, 2003
-versus-
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
AND LENI CHOA,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Alfonso Chan Choa, petitioner,
is a Chinese national. On April 25, 1989, he filed with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 41, Bacolod City, a verified
petition
for naturalization,[1]
docketed as Special Proceeding No. 5395.
During the initial hearing
of the case on August 27, 1990, petitioner testified on direct
examination
but he was not able to finish the same. On August 29, 1990, he
filed
a motion to withdraw his petition for naturalization.[2]
The trial court granted the motion in its Resolution dated September
28,
1990,[3]
which partly reads:
"The petitioner, Alfonso
Chan Choa, has not yet finished testifying on direct-examination.
Although the petitioner has not stated in his said ‘Motion To Withdraw
Petition' the reason why he is withdrawing his petition at this stage
of
the proceedings, the petitioner can not be compelled to continue with
his
petition for naturalization.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"In view thereof, the
petitioner, Alfonso Chan Choa, is allowed to withdraw his petition for
naturalization.cralaw:red
"SO ORDERED."
Meanwhile, on August
5, 1992, State Prosecutor Pedro D. Delfin on detail at Bacolod City,
acting
upon the complaint of petitioner's wife, Leni, filed an Information[4]
with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 3, Bacolod
City,
charging petitioner with perjury under Article 183 of the
Revised
Penal Code, docketed as Criminal Case No. 50322. The
Information
reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"That on or about 30th
day of March, 1989, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines,
and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein
accused
did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and
knowingly
made untruthful statements or falsehoods upon material matters required
by the Revised Naturalization Law (C.A. No. 473) in his verified
‘Petition for Naturalization' dated April 13, 1989 (sic),[5]
subscribed and sworn to before Notary Public Felomino B. Tan, Jr., who
is authorized to administer oath, which petition bears Doc. No. 140,
Page
No. 29, Book No. XXIII, series of 1989, in the Notarial Register of
said
Notary Public, by stating therein the following, to wit:
‘5.)
I am married to a Filipino. My wife's name is Leni Ong Choa and now
resides
at 46 Malaspina Street, Bacolod City. I have two (2)
children
whose names, dates and places of birth, and residence are as follows:
Name
Date of
Birth
Place of Birth Residence
ALBRYAN
July 19,
1981
Bacolod City 46 Malaspina St.,chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ONG
CHOA
Bacolod City
CHERYL
May 5,
1983
Bacolod City 46 Malaspina St.,chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
LYNNE
ONG
Bacolod City
CHOA
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
‘10)
I am of good moral character, I believe in the principles underlying
the
Philippine Constitution. I have conducted myself in a proper and
irreproachable manner during the entire period of my residence in the
Philippines
in my relations with the constituted government as well as with the
community
in which I am living.'
x x
x
x x
x
x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
when in truth and in
fact, said accused knew that his wife Leni Ong Choa and their two (2)
children
were not then residing at said address at # 46 Malaspina Street,
Villamonte,
Bacolod City, having left the aforesaid residence in 1984, or about
five
(5) years earlier and were then residing at Hervias Subdivision,
Bacolod
City; that contrary to his aforesaid allegation in his verified
Petition
for Naturalization, accused, while residing at 211 106 Street,
Greenplains
Subdivision, Bacolod City, has been carrying on an immoral and illicit
relationship with one Stella Flores Saludar, a woman not his wife since
1984, and begetting two (2) children with her as a consequence, as he
and
his wife, the private offended party herein, have long been separated
from
bed and board since 1984; which falsehoods and/or immoral and improper
conduct are grounds for disqualification to become a citizen of the
Philippines.cralaw:red
"Act contrary to law."
Upon arraignment, petitioner
entered a plea of not guilty. Trial ensued thereafter.cralaw:red
After trial, the MTCC
rendered a Decision[6]
dated February 21, 1995 finding petitioner guilty of perjury, as
charged,
thus:
"FOR ALL THE FOREGOING,
this Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
offense
which he is presently charged, and there being no aggravating or
mitigating
circumstances that may be considered, the accused is sentenced to
suffer
the penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional
and
to pay the costs."
Petitioner filed a motion
for a reconsideration,[7]
contending, among others, that there is no basis to convict him of
perjury
because almost two years prior to the filing of the Information, his
motion
to withdraw the petition for naturalization containing the alleged
false
statements was granted by the MTCC, hence, the alleged false statements
were no longer existing or had become functus officio.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The MTCC, in its Order[8]
dated March 31, 1995, denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.cralaw:red
On appeal, the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 54, Bacolod City, in a Decision dated
September
12, 1996, affirmed the MTCC judgment.[9]
Petitioner then filed
with the Court of Appeals a petition for review, docketed as CA-G.R. CR
No. 19968. In his comment, the Solicitor General
recommended
the acquittal of petitioner, contending that the withdrawal of his
petition
for naturalization rendered the same functus officio, thus making the
questioned
false statements inexistent.cralaw:red
The Court of Appeals,
in its Decision dated June 8, 1999,[10]
affirmed the RTC Decision with modification, thus:
"WHEREFORE, finding
the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court to be in accordance
with
law and evidence, we AFFIRM the same with the modification that
petitioner-accused-appellant
Alfonso Choa is sentenced to suffer imprisonment, after applying the
Indeterminate
Sentence Law without any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, for a
period of three (3) months of arresto mayor, to one (1) year and eight
(8) months of prision correccional.cralaw:red
"SO ORDERED."
In convicting petitioner,
the Appellate Court adopted as its own the RTC's findings as follows:
"Evidence presented
clearly proved that all the above-enumerated elements (of perjury) have
been duly executed by the accused. His allegations in his
petition
regarding his, his wife's and children's residences and his positive
averment
of the fact that he is of good moral character and had conducted
himself
in an irreproachable manner during his stay in the Philippines are
material
matters in connection with his petition for naturalization as they are
essential facts required by Sec. 7 of C.A. No. 473 for one to fulfill
for
the acquisition of Philippine citizenship. They are the very
facts
which would be the subject of inquiry by the court hearing the petition
and the same would be the basis of the court's ruling whether one is
qualified
and granted Philippine citizenship.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Paragraph 2 of Art.
183 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the statement or affidavit
is to be made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and
administer
oath. The information shows that the statement was duly
subscribed
and sworn to before Notary Public Felomino B. Tan, Jr., a person
competent
and authorized by law to receive and administer oath and the same was
entered
in his notary register as Doc. No. 140, Page No. 29, Book No. XXIII,
Series
of 1989.cralaw:red
"That the accused made
a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood could be gleaned from
the
discrepancies in his given addresses. In his petition for
naturalization
he gave No. 46 Malaspina Street, Villamonte, Bacolod City as his and
his
wife's residence, while in the birth certificates and the affidavit of
admission of paternity of both Fonsella Kae Saludar and Steve Albert
Saludar,
he gave No. 211, 106 Street, Greenplains Subdivision, Bacolod City as
his
address besides from the fact that while may have been residing in the
above-stated addresses, his wife and children have been staying at
Hervias
Subdivision, Bacolod City since the latter part of 1984.
Furthermore,
cohabiting openly with another woman not his wife and siring (2)
children
with the same, in open defiance with the norm of morality of the
community
where monogamy is the accepted practice, is very inconsistent with his
allegations of a moral life, proper and irreproachable, considering
that
the accused, by his own admission is a graduate of the University of
St.
La Salle, a school known for its high academic and moral
standards.
These assertions are not only willful and deliberate but a perversion
of
truth which the law is mandated to punish.cralaw:red
"Section 7 of
C.A. 473 provides:
‘Any person desiring
to acquire Philippine citizenship shall file with the competent Court,
a petition in triplicate, accompanied by two (2) photographs of the
petitioner,
setting forth his name and surname; his present and former residence,
his
occupation; the place and date of his birth, whether single or married,
the name, age, birthplace and residence of the wife and each of
the
children..x x x.' (underscoring supplied)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The above-cited provisions
are the pertinent law which specifically requires any person desiring
to
acquire Philippine citizenship to accomplish, thus complying with the
fourth
element of the crime of perjury. (pp. 119-120, Original Records, Vol.
II)"[11]
Petitioner filed a motion
for reconsideration but it was denied by the Court of Appeals in a
Resolution
dated February 22, 2000.[12]
Hence, the present
petition for review on certiorari.[13]
Both the petitioner
and the Solicitor General in their respective pleadings contend that
the
challenged Decision of the Court of Appeals should be reversed because:
(a) not all the elements of the crime of perjury are present; and (b)
the
withdrawal of the petition for naturalization which contains the
alleged
untruthful statements bars the prosecution
of
petitioner for perjury.cralaw:red
Thus, the issue
here is whether petitioner may be convicted of perjury based on the
alleged
false statements he stated in his petition for naturalization withdrawn
almost two years prior to the filing of the Information for perjury.cralaw:red
The petition is unmeritorious.cralaw:red
Article 183 of the Revised
Penal Code under which petitioner has been charged and convicted,
provides:
"Art. 183.
False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation.
- The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional
in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who, knowingly
making
untruthful statements and not being included in the provisions of the
next
preceding articles, shall testify under oath, or make an affidavit,
upon
any material matter before a competent person authorized to administer
an oath in cases in which the law so requires.cralaw:red
"Any person who, in
case of a solemn affirmation made in lieu of an oath, shall commit any
of the falsehoods mentioned in this and the three preceding articles of
this section, shall suffer the respective penalties provided therein."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The elements of perjury
are:
1. The accused
made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a
material
matter;
2. The statement
or affidavit was made before a competent officer authorized to receive
and administer oath;
3. In that statement
or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a
falsehood; and
4. The sworn statement
or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made
for
a legal purpose.[14]
All these elements are
present in the instant case. Petitioner willfully and
deliberately
alleged false statements concerning his "residence" and "moral
character"
in his petition for naturalization. This was sufficiently
proven
by the prosecution, as succinctly noted by the Court of Appeals in its
assailed Decision.cralaw:red
The petition for naturalization
was duly subscribed and sworn to by petitioner before Notary Public
Filomino
B. Tan, Jr., a person competent and authorized by law to receive and
administer
oath. Also, petitioner started testifying under oath on his false
allegations before the trial court.cralaw:red
The allegations in the
petition regarding "residence" and "moral character" are material
matters
because they are among the very facts in issue or the main facts which
are the subject of inquiry[15]
and are the bases for the determination of petitioner's qualifications
and fitness as a naturalized Filipino citizen. Thus, C.A. No. 473
provides:
"SEC. 2.
Qualifications. - Subject to section four of this Act, any person
having
the following qualifications may become a citizen of the Philippines by
naturalization:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
"Third.
He must be of good moral character and believes in the principles
underlying
the Philippine Constitution, and must have conducted himself in a
proper
and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in
the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well
as with the community in which he is living;
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
"SEC. 7.
Petition for citizenship. - Any person desiring to acquire Philippine
citizenship
shall file with the competent court, a petition in triplicate,
accompanied
by two photographs of the petitioner, setting forth his name and
surname;
his present and former places of residence; his occupation; the place
and
date of his birth; whether single or married and if the father of
children,
the name, age, birthplace and residence of the wife and of the
children;
x x x; a declaration that he has the qualifications required by this
Act,
specifying the same, and that he is not disqualified for naturalization
under the provisions of this Act; x x x." mphasis supplied)
The necessity of declaring
a truthful and specific information on the "residence" and "moral
character"
in the petition for naturalization has been underscored by this Court
in
Chua Kian Lai vs. Republic,[16]
thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"One qualification for
Philippine citizenship is that the petitioner ‘must be of good moral
character.'
That circumstance should be specifically alleged in the petition.cralaw:red
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
"The law explicitly
requires that the applicant should indicate in his petition ‘his
present
and former places of residence' (Sec. 7, Com. Act No. 473). That
requirement is designed to facilitate the verification of petitioner's
activities which have a bearing on his petition for naturalization,
especially
so as to his qualifications and moral character, either by private
individuals
or by investigative agencies of the government, by pointing to them the
localities or places wherein appropriate inquiries may be made (Keng
Giok
vs. Republic, 112 Phil. 896). Moreover, the suppression of that
information
might constitute falsehood which signifies that the applicant lacks
good
moral character and is not, therefore, qualified to be admitted as a
citizen
of the Philippines." (Emphasis supplied)
Fully cognizant of the
truth surrounding his moral character and residence, petitioner instead
declared falsely in his verified petition for naturalization that "he
has
all the qualifications and none of the disqualification under C.A. No.
473."[17]
Clearly, he willfully asserted falsehood under oath on material matters
required by law.cralaw:red
We cannot go along with
the submission of the petitioner and the Solicitor General that
petitioner
could no longer be prosecuted for perjury in view of the withdrawal of
the petition for naturalization containing his false material
statements.
In this jurisdiction, it is not necessary that the proceeding in which
the perjury is alleged to have been committed be first terminated
before
a prosecution for the said crime is commenced.[18]
At the time he filed his petition for naturalization, he had committed
perjury. As discussed earlier, all the elements of the crime were
already present then. He knew all along that he wilfully stated
material
falsities in his verified petition. Surprisingly, he withdrew his
petition without even stating any reason therefor.[19]
But such withdrawal only terminated the proceedings for
naturalization.
It did not extinguish his culpability for perjury he already
committed.
Indeed, the fact of withdrawal alone cannot bar the State from
prosecuting
petitioner, an alien, who made a mockery not only of the Philippine
naturalization
law but the judicial proceedings as well. And the petition
for naturalization tainted with material falsities can be used as
evidence
of his unlawful act.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner then claims
that since the petition for naturalization is a pleading, the
allegations
therein are absolutely privileged and cannot be used for any criminal
prosecution
against him, citing Sison vs. David,[2]
People vs. Aquino[21]
and Flordelis vs. Himalaloan.[22]
The argument is unavailing.
Sison and Aquino both involve libel cases. In Sison, this Court
categorically
stressed that the term "absolute privilege" (or "qualified privilege")
has an "established technical meaning, in connection with civil actions
for libel and slander." The purpose of the privilege is to ensure
that "members of the legislature, judges of courts, jurors, lawyers,
and
witnesses may speak their minds freely and exercise their respective
functions
without incurring the risk of a criminal prosecution or an action for
the
recovery of damages. It is granted in aid and for the advantage
of
the administration of justice."[23]
Certainly, in the present case, petitioner cannot seek refuge under the
absolutely privileged communication rule since the false statements he
made in his petition for naturalization has instead made a mockery of
the
administration of justice.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Flordelis case is
likewise not in point. There, Flordelis was charged with perjury
for having alleged false statements in his verified answer. This
Court held that no perjury could be committed by Flordelis because "an
answer to a complaint in an ordinary civil action need not be under
oath,"
thus, "it is at once apparent that one element of the crime of perjury
is absent x x x, namely, that the sworn statement complained of must be
required by law."[24]
Anent the alleged violation
of petitioner's constitutional right to equal protection, suffice it to
state that such right cannot be invoked to protect his criminal act.cralaw:red
In People vs. Cainglet,[25]
this Court emphatically stressed that "every interest of public policy
demands that perjury be not shielded by artificial refinements and
narrow
technicalities. For perjury strikes at the administration of the
laws. It is the policy of the law that judicial proceedings and
judgments
be fair and free from fraud, and that litigants and parties be
encouraged
to tell the truth, and that they be punished if they do not."
WHEREFORE, the instant
petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED. The appealed
Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman),
Panganiban,
Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ.,
concur.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 473 (An Act to Provide for the
Acquisition
of Philippine Citizenship by Naturalization).
[2]
Records of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 3,
Bacolod
City, in Criminal Case No. 50322, at 313.
[3]
Id. at 313-314.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Rollo at 43-44.
[5]
The Petition for Naturalization is actually dated March 30, 1989 but
was
filed on April 25, 1989.
[6]
Records of the MTCC at 347-358; Rollo at 45-57.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id. at 359-368.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id. at 403-405.
[9]
Rollo at 58-64.
[10]
Penned by Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, now a member of this
Court,
and concurred in by Justices Salvador J. Valdez, Jr. and Renato C.
Dacudao;
id. at 140-150.
[11]
Id. at 145-146.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id. at 174.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended.
[14]
Saavedra, Jr. vs. Department of Justice, 226 SCRA 438, 445 (1993)
citing
Diaz vs. People, 191 SCRA 86, 93 (1990); see also Burgos vs. Aquino,
249
SCRA 504 (1995).
[15]
United States vs. Estraña, 16 Phil. 520 (1910).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
59 SCRA 40 (1974).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Exhibit "J-3," MTCC Records at 105.
[18]
United States vs. Estraña, supra.
[19]
Exhibit "9," supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
1 SCRA 60 (1961).
[21]
18 SCRA 555 (1966).
[22]
84 SCRA 477 (1978).
[23]
People vs. Aquino, supra at 561.
[24]
Flordelis vs. Himalaloan, supra at 481.
[25]
123 Phil. 568 (1966).
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |