G.R. No. 142011 - Choa vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 142011)

Factual Background

Petitioner, a Chinese national, executed and filed a verified petition for naturalization in 1989 in which he declared his marital status, the names and residences of his wife and children, and a declaration of good moral character and irreproachable conduct. The petition listed No. 46 Malaspina Street, Villamonte, Bacolod City, as the residence of petitioner and his wife, and asserted that he was of good moral character and believed in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution. In truth, the affairs alleged in the Information showed that petitioner’s wife and children had ceased residing at the stated Malaspina address since 1984 and had been residing at Hervias Subdivision, and that petitioner had been cohabiting with another woman, Stella Flores Saludar, since 1984 and had fathered two children with her.

Withdrawal of Petition and Subsequent Complaint

Petitioner began testifying at the initial hearing on August 27, 1990 but did not finish. He filed a motion to withdraw his petition for naturalization on August 29, 1990, and the trial court granted withdrawal by resolution dated September 28, 1990 without requiring him to state a reason. Thereafter, upon the complaint of petitioner's wife, State Prosecutor Pedro D. Delfin filed an Information in the MTCC on August 5, 1992 charging petitioner with perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code for knowingly making untruthful statements on material matters in his verified petition for naturalization.

MTCC Trial and Conviction

Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty and trial followed. The MTCC found petitioner guilty of perjury in a Decision dated February 21, 1995, concluding that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner had made willful and deliberate falsehoods in a sworn petition on material matters required by the naturalization law. The MTCC sentenced petitioner to six months and one day of prision correccional and imposed costs. The MTCC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals Decisions

The RTC, Branch 54, affirmed the MTCC conviction in a September 12, 1996 Decision. On further appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s findings on June 8, 1999 but modified the sentence under the Indeterminate Sentence Law to imprisonment from three months of arresto mayor to one year and eight months of prision correccional. The CA adopted the RTC’s factual findings that petitioner’s sworn statements concerning residence and moral character were material under Section 7 and Section 2 of C.A. No. 473, that the petition was subscribed and sworn to before a competent notary public, and that discrepancies in addresses and petitioner’s cohabitation with another woman established willfulness and deliberate falsity.

Parties’ Contentions on Review

Petitioner and the Solicitor General urged reversal to the Supreme Court on two principal grounds. First, they asserted that not all elements of perjury were present. Second, they argued that the withdrawal of the petition for naturalization rendered the petition functus officio and therefore extinguished or rendered inexistent the alleged false statements, barring prosecution for perjury. The Solicitor General had previously recommended acquittal to the Court of Appeals on the ground that the withdrawal rendered the petition unenforceable.

Legal Issue Presented

The determinative issue was whether petitioner could be convicted of perjury based on alleged false statements contained in a verified petition for naturalization that petitioner had withdrawn before the filing of the Information, and whether withdrawal of that petition or the privileged character of pleadings barred criminal prosecution for perjury.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that all elements of perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code were present in petitioner’s conduct and that withdrawal of the petition for naturalization did not extinguish criminal liability for perjury already committed.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court recited the elements of perjury under Article 183: (1) the making of a statement under oath or execution of an affidavit upon a material matter; (2) that the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer authorized to administer an oath; (3) that the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood; and (4) that the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity was required by law or made for a legal purpose. The Court found each element satisfied: petitioner made material assertions concerning residence and moral character in a verified petition for naturalization; the petition was subscribed and sworn to before Notary Public Filomino B. Tan, Jr.; evidence of inconsistent addresses and petitioner’s admitted cohabitation with another woman demonstrated willful and deliberate falsity; and the declarations were required by C.A. No. 473, which expressly requires the statement of present and former places of residence and a declaration of good moral character. The Court relied on precedent emphasizing the materiality of residence and moral character to naturalization inquiries, including Chua Kian Lai vs. Republic and earlier authorities.

The Court rejected petitioner’s contention that withdrawal of the petition rendered prosecution impermissible, noting that perjury had been completed when the false sworn statements were made and that termination or withdrawal of the civil proceeding does

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 142011)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Alfonso C. Choa was a Chinese national who filed a verified petition for naturalization on April 25, 1989, docketed as Special Proceeding No. 5395 in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Bacolod City.
Alfonso C. Choa began testifying at the initial hearing on August 27, 1990, and filed a motion to withdraw his petition on August 29, 1990, which the trial court granted by Resolution dated September 28, 1990.
Leni Choa filed a complaint that prompted State Prosecutor Pedro D. Delfin to file an Information for perjury under Art. 183, Revised Penal Code on August 5, 1992, in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 3, Bacolod City, docketed as Criminal Case No. 50322.
The MTCC arraigned Alfonso C. Choa, who pleaded not guilty, and thereafter conducted trial and rendered a Decision dated February 21, 1995 finding him guilty of perjury and sentencing him to six months and one day of prision correccional and costs.
Alfonso C. Choa filed a motion for reconsideration which the MTCC denied on March 31, 1995, and the Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, Bacolod City, affirmed the MTCC Decision in a Decision dated September 12, 1996.
Alfonso C. Choa appealed to the Court of Appeals via CA-G.R. CR No. 19968, where the Solicitor General recommended acquittal but the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Decision with modification on June 8, 1999, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and imposing imprisonment of three months of arresto mayor to one year and eight months of prision correccional.
The Court of Appeals denied a motion for reconsideration on February 22, 2000, and Alfonso C. Choa filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Key Factual Allegations

The verified petition for naturalization contained allegations that Alfonso C. Choa and his wife Leni Ong Choa then resided at No. 46 Malaspina Street, Villamonte, Bacolod City, and that their two children resided at the same address.
The prosecution alleged that Leni Ong Choa and the children had left No. 46 Malaspina Street in 1984 and were residing at Hervias Subdivision at the time the petition was filed.
The prosecution further alleged that Alfonso C. Choa had been cohabiting with Stella Flores Saludar since 1984 and had fathered two children with her while separated from his wife since 1984.
The petition for naturalization contained a sworn declaration of good moral character and adherence to constitutional principles that the prosecution alleged was false.
The petition for naturalization was subscribed and sworn to before Notary Public Filomino B. Tan, Jr., and was entered in the notarial register as Doc. No. 140, Page No. 29, Book No. XXIII, Series of 1989.
Alfonso C. Choa withdrew his petition without stating a reason and later began testifying under oath in the naturalization proceeding before withdrawal.

Statutory Framework

Art. 183, Revised Penal Code prescribes the penalty for perjury and requires that the accused knowingly make untruthful statements under oath before a competent officer upon a material matter.
Commonwealth Act No. 473 sets the qualifications for naturalization and requires in Sec. 2 that a petitioner be of good moral character and in Sec. 7 that the petition set forth present and former places of residence and a declaration of qualifications and lack of disqualifications.
The elements of perjury, as stated in the jurisprudence cited in the Decision, are that the accu