G.R. No. 12001. February 28, 1961
JESUS LIM CHING TIAN, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
before the Court of First Instance of Cebu. The petition is supported
by a joint affidavit signed by Manuel R. Valenzuela and Vicente D.
Flores who testified in court to substantiate the same. After the
reception of the evidence, the court rendered judgment granting the
petition. The government has appealed.
Petitioner is a
citizen of Nationalist China who was born on January 24, 1933, in Amoy,
China. He is the legitimate son of Lim Kim So and Too Ty also Chinese
citizens who likewise owe allegiance to Nationlist China. He came to
the Philippines sometime in January, 1936. He is married to Patricia
Uy, a Chinese citizen, who was born in Bohol on August 25, 1929. He has
been residing continuously in the Philippines since then, particularly
in the City of Cebu, for a period of 20 years.
He is a
businessman by profession, being the assistant manager of the business
of his father established in Cebu City. He derives an income of
P2,400.00 per annum, plus bonus and free board and lodging. He finished
his primary and secondary education in the Philippines, having
graduated with the degree of Bachelor of Science in Commerce from the
University of San Carlos in 1953. He is familiar with the functions of
our government and believe in the principles underlying our
Constitution. He conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable
manner, and was never charged with any offense, nor convicted of any
crime involving moral turpitude. He knows English and speaks and writes
the Cebu dialect. In short, he has allegedly all the qualifications
required to become a Filipino citizen and one of the disqualifications
to acquire such citizenship.
The only ground on which the
government predicates this appeal is the claim that Vicente D. Flores
is incompetent to act as a vouching witness of petitioner not only
because he has not known him for the period required by law but also
because his association with him is not sufficient to enable him to
attest to his qualification to become a Filipino citizen.
There is merit in this contention. It appears that Flores met
petitioner only in 1939, when he began to go to school, and gain in
1940, even if his association with his family was only casual. Then he
stopped seeing him because of the war that intervened. In 1947, he met
him again in Cebu City when he noticed that he was working in the store
of his father as assistant. He began to know him only intimately in
1950 when he used to frequent the store where he was working, but
thereafter, his knowledge of him was merely intermittent and casual.
All this he stated in his direct examination from which one can infer
that his association with petitioner, besides not being continuous, is
short of the period required by law.
That this witness is
not very well acquainted with petitioner was also clearly revealed
during his cross-examination. Thus, when asked how well he knew
petitioner, Flores said that he did not even know how old was he when
he met him for the first time in 1939. In fact he stated that
petitioner was already 15 or 16 years old at that time, and yet it
appears that petitioner was born only on January 24, 1933, which means
that he was only 6 years old then. Again, Flores declared that
petitioner began working in the business of his father as salesman
since 1950, but according to petitioner himself, the latter began
working for his father in his business only from 1953 as shown by
Exhibit F.
The law requires that a vouching witness should
have actually known an applicant for whom he testifies for the
requisite period prescribed therein to give him the necessary
competence to act as such.[1]
The reason behind this requirement is that a vouching witness is in a
way an insurer of the character of petitioner because on his testimony
the court is of necessity compelled to rely in deciding the merits of
his petition.[2] It is,
therefore, imperative that he be competent and reliable. And he is only
competent to testify on his conduct, character and moral fitness if he
has had the opportunity to observe him personally, if not intimately,
during the period he has allegedly known him. Such knowledge Flores did
not possess. He is, therefore, disqualified to act as character witness.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed, without pronouncement as to costs.
Bengzon, Acting C. J., Padilla, Concepcion, Reyes, J, B. L., Barrera, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.
[1] Section 7, Commonwealth Act 473, as amended.
[2] In re Kornstein 278 F, 182; Cu vs. Republic, 89 Phil., 473. See also Singh vs. Republic, 97 Phil., 622; 51 Off. Gaz., No. 10, 5172; Dy Suat Hong vs. Republic, 101 Phil., 635; 54 Off. Gaz., 2160.