ALFONSO C. CHOA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND LENI CHOA, RESPONDENTS.

Choa versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the case of Alfonso Choa against the People of the Philippines and his wife Leni Choa. Alfonso, a Chinese national, filed a verified petition for naturalization, swore to statements about his residence and his moral character, then withdrew the petition — and was later charged with perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code for those very statements. The case matters because it fixes two rules every reviewee must carry: perjury is complete the moment the false statement is sworn to, and the later withdrawal of the pleading containing the falsehood does not extinguish the crime.

Procedural History

Alfonso filed his petition for naturalization with the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City. During the initial hearing he testified on direct examination but did not finish, and he then moved to withdraw the petition. The trial court granted the withdrawal. Later, upon the complaint of his wife Leni, the Office of the State Prosecutor filed an Information for perjury with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Bacolod City. After trial, that court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to six months and one day of prision correccional, plus costs. He moved for reconsideration, arguing that the withdrawal had rendered the petition functus officio, meaning it no longer existed as a live proceeding; the motion was denied.

On appeal, the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City affirmed the conviction. Alfonso then went up to the Court of Appeals by petition for review. The Solicitor General, interestingly, recommended acquittal on the same functus officio theory. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court but modified the penalty, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to three months of arresto mayor as minimum to one year and eight months of prision correccional as maximum. His motion for reconsideration was denied, so he came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Facts

On April 25, 1989, Alfonso Chan Choa, a Chinese national, filed a verified petition for naturalization with the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City. In that petition, sworn before a notary public, he declared that his wife Leni and their two children resided with him at 46 Malaspina Street, Bacolod City, and that he was of good moral character and had conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his entire residence in the Philippines.

In truth, his wife and children had left that residence in 1984 and were staying in Hervias Subdivision, Bacolod City. Meanwhile, Alfonso had been carrying on an illicit relationship with another woman, Stella Flores Saludar, since 1984, and had begotten two children with her, giving a different address in Greenplains Subdivision in the birth certificates and affidavit of admission of paternity of those children.

At the initial hearing in August 1990, Alfonso testified on direct examination but did not finish. Two days later he moved to withdraw his petition, without stating any reason, and the trial court allowed the withdrawal. Almost two years later, in August 1992, upon the complaint of his wife Leni, the State Prosecutor filed an Information for perjury against him based on the false statements in the withdrawn petition.

Issues

• Whether or not all the elements of the crime of perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code are present in the false statements made in the petition for naturalization.
• Whether or not the withdrawal of the petition for naturalization, granted almost two years before the Information was filed, bars the prosecution of Alfonso for perjury.
• Whether or not the allegations in the petition for naturalization are absolutely privileged as a pleading and therefore cannot be used in a criminal prosecution.
• Whether or not Alfonso's constitutional right to equal protection was violated.

Applicable Provisions

Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime charged, provides:

Article 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. 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.

This is the provision under which Alfonso was charged and convicted, and its elements supply the test for the first issue.

Section 2 of Commonwealth Act Number 473, the Revised Naturalization Law, provides:

Section 2. Qualifications. Subject to section four of this Act, any person having the following qualifications may become a citizen of the Philippines by naturalization: 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.

This establishes that good moral character is a statutory qualification, making Alfonso's averment on moral character a material matter.

Section 7 of Commonwealth Act Number 473 provides:

Section 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; 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.

This is the law that requires the sworn petition, satisfying the element that the false statement be required by law or made for a legal purpose, and it expressly demands the places of residence that Alfonso misstated.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that all four elements of perjury are present. Alfonso made statements under oath on material matters; the petition was sworn before a notary public competent to administer an oath; he made a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood; and the sworn statement was required by law. The Court stressed that residence and moral character are material because they are the very facts in issue in a naturalization proceeding and the bases for determining the applicant's qualifications and fitness. His false declaration of address, contradicted by the birth certificates and affidavit of admission of paternity of his two children with another woman, and his open cohabitation with a woman not his wife, showed a deliberate perversion of truth.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that the withdrawal did not bar prosecution. Perjury was already committed when the petition was filed, and all its elements were present then. The withdrawal merely terminated the naturalization proceedings; it did not extinguish his culpability. The Court held that it is not necessary that the proceeding in which the perjury was committed be first terminated before prosecution begins, and that the tainted petition may be used as evidence of his unlawful act.

On the third issue, the Court rejected the absolute privilege argument. The libel cases cited involved civil actions for libel and slander, where the privilege protects participants in judicial proceedings so they may speak freely in aid of the administration of justice. Here, the false statements made a mockery of the administration of justice, so the privilege cannot shelter him. The Flordelis case was not in point because an answer in an ordinary civil action need not be under oath, so the element that the sworn statement be required by law was absent there.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the right to equal protection cannot be invoked to protect a criminal act. It quoted People versus Cainglet 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.

Doctrine

Perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code is consummated upon the making of a willful and deliberate falsehood on a material matter in a sworn statement required by law, before a competent officer authorized to administer an oath. The crime is complete at the moment of the false swearing; the subsequent withdrawal of the petition containing the falsehood does not extinguish criminal liability, because withdrawal terminates only the proceeding, not the offense already committed. Residence and moral character are material matters in a petition for naturalization under Sections 2 and 7 of Commonwealth Act Number 473, since they are the very facts in issue and the bases for determining the applicant's fitness. The absolute privilege rule protecting statements in judicial pleadings applies to civil actions for libel and slander and cannot be invoked to shield a criminal act that makes a mockery of the administration of justice.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals, so Alfonso Choa stands convicted of perjury and must serve the modified indeterminate penalty.

Remember This

Memorize this line: perjury is complete upon the false swearing, and the withdrawal of the petition does not wipe out the crime. Examiners use this case to test the elements of perjury under Article 183 and the materiality of residence and moral character in naturalization petitions.