Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 142011 March 14, 2003
ALFONSO C. CHOA, petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and LENI CHOA, respondents.
SANO!AL"GUTIERRE#, J.$
lfonso !han !hoa, petitioner, is a !hinese national. On pril "#, $%&%, he filed 'ith the Re(ional
Trial !ourt )RT!*, +ranch ,$, +acolod !it-, a verified petition for naturali.ation,
$
doc/eted as Special
Proceedin( No. #0%#.
Durin( the initial hearin( of the case on u(ust "1, $%%2, petitioner testified on direct e3a4ination but
he 'as not able to finish the sa4e. On u(ust "%, $%%2, he filed a 4otion to 'ithdra' his petition for
naturali.ation.
"
The trial court (ranted the 4otion in its Resolution dated Septe4ber "&, $%%2,
0
'hich
partl- reads5
6The petitioner, lfonso !han !hoa, has not -et finished testif-in( on direct7e3a4ination.
lthou(h the petitioner has not stated in his said 8Motion To 9ithdra' Petition: the reason 'h-
he is 'ithdra'in( his petition at this sta(e of the proceedin(s, the petitioner can not be
co4pelled to continue 'ith his petition for naturali.ation.
6In vie' thereof, the petitioner, lfonso !han !hoa, is allo'ed to 'ithdra' his petition for
naturali.ation.
6SO ORD;R;D.6
Mean'hile, on u(ust #, $%%", State Prosecutor Pedro D. Delfin on detail at +acolod !it-, actin( upon
the co4plaint of petitioner:s 'ife, <eni, filed an Infor4ation
,
'ith the Municipal Trial !ourt in !ities
)MT!!*, +ranch 0, +acolod !it-, char(in( petitioner 'ith per=ur- under rticle $&0 of the Revised
Penal !ode, doc/eted as !ri4inal !ase No. #20"". The Infor4ation reads5
6That on or about 02th da- of March, $%&%, in the !it- of +acolod, Philippines, and 'ithin the
=urisdiction of this Honorable !ourt, the herein accused did then and there, 'illfull-, unla'full-,
feloniousl- and /no'in(l- 4ade untruthful state4ents or falsehoods upon 4aterial 4atters
re>uired b- the Revised Naturali.ation <a' )!.. No. ,10* in his verified 8Petition for
Naturali.ation: dated pril $0, $%&% )sic*,
#
subscribed and s'orn to before Notar- Public
?elo4ino +. Tan, @r., 'ho is authori.ed to ad4inister oath, 'hich petition bears Doc. No. $,2,
Pa(e No. "%, +oo/ No. AAIII, series of $%&%, in the Notarial Re(ister of said Notar- Public, b-
statin( therein the follo'in(, to 'it5
8#.* I a4 4arried to a ?ilipino. M- 'ife:s na4e is <eni On( !hoa and no' resides at ,B
Malaspina Street, +acolod !it-. I have t'o )"* children 'hose na4es, dates and places
of birth, and residence are as follo's5
Na4e Date of +irth Place of +irth Residence
<+RCN
OND !HO
@ul- $%, $%&$ +acolod !it- ,B Malaspina
St., +acolod
!it-
!H;RC<
<CNN; OND
!HO
Ma- #, $%&0 +acolod !it- ,B Malaspina
St., +acolod
!it-
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
8$2* I a4 of (ood 4oral character, I believe in the principles underl-in( the Philippine
!onstitution. I have conducted 4-self in a proper and irreproachable 4anner durin( the
entire period of 4- residence in the Philippines in 4- relations 'ith the constituted
(overn4ent as 'ell as 'ith the co44unit- in 'hich I a4 livin(.:
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
'hen in truth and in fact, said accused /ne' that his 'ife <eni On( !hoa and their t'o )"*
children 'ere not then residin( at said address at E ,B Malaspina Street, Villa4onte, +acolod
!it-, havin( left the aforesaid residence in $%&,, or about five )#* -ears earlier and 'ere then
residin( at Hervias Subdivision, +acolod !it-F that contrar- to his aforesaid alle(ation in his
verified Petition for Naturali.ation, accused, 'hile residin( at "$$ $2B Street, Dreenplains
Subdivision, +acolod !it-, has been carr-in( on an i44oral and illicit relationship 'ith one
Stella ?lores Saludar, a 'o4an not his 'ife since $%&,, and be(ettin( t'o )"* children 'ith her
as a conse>uence, as he and his 'ife, the private offended part- herein, have lon( been
separated fro4 bed and board since $%&,F 'hich falsehoods andGor i44oral and i4proper
conduct are (rounds for dis>ualification to beco4e a citi.en of the Philippines.
6ct contrar- to la'.6
Hpon arrai(n4ent, petitioner entered a plea of not (uilt-. Trial ensued thereafter.
fter trial, the MT!! rendered a Decision
B
dated ?ebruar- "$, $%%# findin( petitioner (uilt- of
per=ur-, as char(ed, thus5
6?OR << TH; ?OR;DOIND, this !ourt finds the accused (uilt- be-ond reasonable doubt of
the offense 'hich he is presentl- char(ed, and there bein( no a((ravatin( or 4iti(atin(
circu4stances that 4a- be considered, the accused is sentenced to suffer the penalt- of si3 )B*
4onths and one )$* da- of prision correccional and to pa- the costs.6
Petitioner filed a 4otion for a reconsideration,
1
contendin(, a4on( others, that there is no basis to
convict hi4 of per=ur- because al4ost t'o -ears prior to the filin( of the Infor4ation, his 4otion to
'ithdra' the petition for naturali.ation containin( the alle(ed false state4ents 'as (ranted b- the
MT!!, hence, the alle(ed false state4ents 'ere no longer existing or had beco4e functus officio.
The MT!!, in its Order
&
dated March 0$, $%%#, denied petitioner:s 4otion for reconsideration.
On appeal, the Re(ional Trial !ourt )RT!*, +ranch #,, +acolod !it-, in a Decision dated Septe4ber
$", $%%B, affir4ed the MT!! =ud(4ent.
%
Petitioner then filed 'ith the !ourt of ppeals a petition for revie', doc/eted as !7D.R. !R No.
$%%B&. In his co44ent, the Solicitor Deneral reco44ended the ac>uittal of petitioner, contendin( that
the 'ithdra'al of his petition for naturali.ation rendered the sa4e functus officio, thus 4a/in( the
>uestioned false state4ents ine3istent.
The !ourt of ppeals, in its Decision dated @une &, $%%%,
$2
affir4ed the RT! Decision 'ith
4odification, thus5
69H;R;?OR;, findin( the appealed decision of the Re(ional Trial !ourt to be in accordance
'ith la' and evidence, 'e ??IRM the sa4e 'ith the 4odification that petitioner7accused7
appellant lfonso !hoa is sentenced to suffer i4prison4ent, after appl-in( the Indeter4inate
Sentence <a' 'ithout an- a((ravatin( or 4iti(atin( circu4stance, for a period of three )0*
4onths of arresto mayor, to one )$* -ear and ei(ht )&* 4onths of prision correccional.
6SO ORD;R;D.6
In convictin( petitioner, the ppellate !ourt adopted as its o'n the RT!:s findin(s as follo's5
6;vidence presented clearl- proved that all the above7enu4erated ele4ents )of per=ur-* have
been dul- e3ecuted b- the accused. His alle(ations in his petition re(ardin( his, his 'ife:s and
children:s residences and his positive aver4ent of the fact that he is of (ood 4oral character and
had conducted hi4self in an irreproachable 4anner durin( his sta- in the Philippines are
4aterial 4atters in connection 'ith his petition for naturali.ation as the- are essential facts
re>uired b- Sec. 1 of !.. No. ,10 for one to fulfill for the ac>uisition of Philippine citi.enship.
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 courts ruling whether one is qualified and granted
Philippine citizenship.
6Para(raph " of rt. $&0 of the Revised Penal !ode provides that the state4ent or affidavit is to
be 4ade before a co4petent officer, authori.ed to receive and ad4inister oath. The infor4ation
sho's that the state4ent 'as dul- subscribed and s'orn to before Notar- Public ?elo4ino +.
Tan, @r., a person co4petent and authori.ed b- la' to receive and ad4inister oath and the sa4e
'as entered in his notar- re(ister as Doc. No. $,2, Pa(e No. "%, +oo/ No. AAIII, Series of
$%&%.
6That the accused 4ade a 'illful and deliberate assertion of falsehood could be (leaned fro4
the discrepancies in his (iven addresses. In his petition for naturali.ation he (ave No. ,B
Malaspina Street, Villa4onte, +acolod !it- as his and his 'ife:s residence, 'hile in the birth
certificates and the affidavit of ad4ission of paternit- of both ?onsella Iae Saludar and Steve
lbert Saludar, he (ave No. "$$, $2B Street, Dreenplains Subdivision, +acolod !it- as his
address besides fro4 the fact that 'hile 4a- have been residin( in the above7stated addresses,
his 'ife and children have been sta-in( at Hervias Subdivision, +acolod !it- since the latter
part of $%&,. ?urther4ore, cohabitin( openl- 'ith another 'o4an not his 'ife and sirin( )"*
children 'ith the sa4e, in open defiance 'ith the nor4 of 4oralit- of the co44unit- 'here
4ono(a4- is the accepted practice, is ver- inconsistent 'ith his alle(ations of a 4oral life,
proper and irreproachable, considerin( that the accused, b- his o'n ad4ission is a (raduate of
the Hniversit- of St. <a Salle, a school /no'n for its hi(h acade4ic and 4oral standards. These
assertions are not onl- 'illful and deliberate but a perversion of truth 'hich the la' is 4andated
to punish.
6Section 1 of !.. ,10 provides5
8n- person desirin( to ac>uire Philippine citi.enship shall file 'ith the co4petent
!ourt, a petition in triplicate, acco4panied b- t'o )"* photo(raphs of the petitioner,
settin( forth his na4e and surna4eF his present and former residence, his occupationF
the place and date of his birth, 'hether sin(le or 4arried, the na4e, a(e, birthplace and
residence of the 'ife and each of the childrenJ3 3 3.: )underscorin( supplied*
6The above7cited provisions are the pertinent la' 'hich specificall- re>uires an- person
desirin( to ac>uire Philippine citi.enship to acco4plish, thus co4pl-in( 'ith the fourth ele4ent
of the cri4e of per=ur-. )pp. $$%7$"2, Ori(inal Records, Vol. II*6
$$
Petitioner filed a 4otion for reconsideration but it 'as denied b- the !ourt of ppeals in a Resolution
dated ?ebruar- "", "222.
$"
Hence, the present petition for revie' on certiorari.
$0
+oth the petitioner and the Solicitor Deneral in their respective pleadin(s contend that the challen(ed
Decision of the !ourt of ppeals should be reversed because5 )a* not all the ele4ents of the cri4e of
per=ur- are presentF and )b* the 'ithdra'al of the petition for naturali.ation 'hich contains the alle(ed
untruthful state4ents bars the prosecution of petitioner for per=ur-.
Thus, the issue here is 'hether petitioner 4a- be convicted of per=ur- based on the alle(ed false
state4ents he stated in his petition for naturali.ation 'ithdra'n al4ost t'o -ears prior to the filin( of
the Infor4ation for per=ur-.
The petition is un4eritorious.
rticle $&0 of the Revised Penal !ode under 'hich petitioner has been char(ed and convicted,
provides5
6rt. $&0. False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation. K The penalt- of
arresto mayor in its 4a3i4u4 period to prision correccional in its 4ini4u4 period shall be
i4posed upon an- person 'ho, /no'in(l- 4a/in( untruthful state4ents and not bein( included
in the provisions of the ne3t precedin( articles, shall testif- under oath, or 4a/e an affidavit,
upon an- 4aterial 4atter before a co4petent person authori.ed to ad4inister an oath in cases in
'hich the la' so re>uires.
6n- person 'ho, in case of a sole4n affir4ation 4ade in lieu of an oath, shall co44it an- of
the falsehoods 4entioned in this and the three precedin( articles of this section, shall suffer the
respective penalties provided therein.6
The ele4ents of per=ur- are5
$. The accused 4ade a state4ent under oath or e3ecuted an affidavit upon a 4aterial 4atterF
". The state4ent or affidavit 'as 4ade before a co4petent officer authori.ed to receive and
ad4inister oathF
0. In that state4ent or affidavit, the accused 4ade a 'illful and deliberate assertion of a
falsehoodF and
,. The s'orn state4ent or affidavit containin( the falsit- is re>uired b- la' or 4ade for a le(al
purpose.
$,
ll these ele4ents are present in the instant case. Petitioner 'illfull- and deliberatel- alle(ed false
state4ents concernin( his 6residence6 and 64oral character6 in his petition for naturali.ation. This 'as
sufficientl- proven b- the prosecution, as succinctl- noted b- the !ourt of ppeals in its assailed
Decision.
The petition for naturali.ation 'as dul- subscribed and s'orn to b- petitioner before Notar- Public
?ilo4ino +. Tan, @r., a person co4petent and authori.ed b- la' to receive and ad4inister oath. lso,
petitioner started testif-in( under oath on his false alle(ations before the trial court.
The alle(ations in the petition re(ardin( 6residence6 and 64oral character6 are 4aterial 4atters because
the- are a4on( the ver- facts in issue or the 4ain facts 'hich are the sub=ect of in>uir-
$#
and are the
bases for the deter4ination of petitionerLs >ualifications and fitness as a naturali.ed ?ilipino citi.en.
Thus, !.. No. ,10 provides5
6S;!. ". Qualifications. K Sub=ect to section four of this ct, an- person havin( the follo'in(
>ualifications 4a- beco4e a citi.en of the Philippines b- naturali.ation5
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6Third. He must be of good moral character and believes in the principles underl-in( the
Philippine !onstitution, 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 livingF
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6S;!. 1. Petition for citizenship. K n- person desirin( to ac>uire Philippine citi.enship shall
file 'ith the co4petent court, a petition in triplicate, acco4panied b- t'o photo(raphs of the
petitioner, settin( forth his na4e and surna4eF his present and former places of residenceF his
occupationF the place and date of his birthF 'hether sin(le or 4arried and if the father of
children, the na4e, a(e, birthplace and residence of the wife and of the children x x x a
declaration that he has the qualifications required by this !ct" specifying the same" and that he
is not disqualified for naturalization under the provisions of this !ctF 3 3 3.6 )italics supplied*
The necessit- of declarin( a truthful and specific infor4ation on the 6residence6 and 64oral character6
in the petition for naturali.ation has been underscored b- this !ourt in #hua $ian %ai vs& 'epublic,
$B
thus5
6One >ualification for Philippine citi.enship is that the petitioner 84ust be of (ood 4oral
character.: That circu4stance should be specificall- alle(ed in the petition.
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6The la' e3plicitl- re>uires that the applicant should indicate in his petition 8his present and
former places of residence: )Sec. 1, !o4. ct No. ,10*. That re>uire4ent is designed to
facilitate the verification of petitioners activities 'hich have a bearing on his petition for
naturalization, especiall- so as to his qualifications and moral character, either b- private
individuals or b- investi(ative a(encies of the (overn4ent, b- pointin( to the4 the localities or
places 'herein appropriate in>uiries 4a- be 4ade )$eng (io) vs& 'epublic, $$" Phil. &%B*.
Moreover, the suppression of that information might constitute falsehood which signifies that
the applicant lac)s good moral character and is not" therefore" qualified to be admitted as a
citizen of the Philippines.6 )italics supplied*
?ull- co(ni.ant of the truth surroundin( his 4oral character and residence, petitioner instead declared
falsel- in his verified petition for naturali.ation that 6he has all the >ualifications and none of the
dis>ualification under !.. No. ,10.6
$1
!learl-, he 'illfull- asserted falsehood under oath on 4aterial
4atters re>uired b- la'.
9e cannot (o alon( 'ith the sub4ission of the petitioner and the Solicitor Deneral that petitioner could
no lon(er be prosecuted for per=ur- in vie' of the 'ithdra'al of the petition for naturali.ation
containin( his false 4aterial state4ents. In this =urisdiction, it is not necessar- that the proceedin( in
'hich the per=ur- is alle(ed to have been co44itted be first ter4inated before a prosecution for the
said cri4e is co44enced.
$&
t the ti4e he filed his petition for naturali.ation, he had co44itted
per=ur-. s discussed earlier, all the ele4ents of the cri4e 'ere alread- present then. He /ne' all alon(
that he 'ilfull- stated 4aterial falsities in his verified petition. Surprisin(l-, he 'ithdre' his petition
'ithout even statin( an- reason therefor.
$%
+ut such withdrawal only terminated the proceedings for
naturalization& *t did not extinguish his culpability for perjury he already committed. Indeed, the fact of
'ithdra'al alone cannot bar the State fro4 prosecutin( petitioner, an alien, 'ho 4ade a 4oc/er- not
onl- of the Philippine naturali.ation la' but the =udicial proceedin(s as 'ell. nd the petition for
naturali.ation tainted 'ith 4aterial falsities can be used as evidence of his unla'ful act.
Petitioner then clai4s that since the petition for naturali.ation is a pleadin(, the alle(ations therein are
absolutel- privile(ed and cannot be used for an- cri4inal prosecution a(ainst hi4, citin( +ison vs&
,avid,
"2
People vs& !quino
"$
and Flordelis vs& -imalaloan.
""
The ar(u4ent is unavailin(. +ison and !quino both involve libel cases. In Sison, this !ourt
cate(oricall- stressed that the ter4 6absolute privilege6 )or 6>ualified privile(e6* has an 6established
technical 4eanin(, in connection with civil actions for libel and slander.6 The purpose of the privile(e
is to ensure that 64e4bers of the le(islature, =ud(es of courts, =urors, la'-ers, and 'itnesses 4a- spea/
their 4inds freel- and e3ercise their respective functions 'ithout incurrin( the ris/ of a cri4inal
prosecution or an action for the recover- of da4a(es. *t is granted in aid and for the advantage of the
administration of justice.6
"0
!ertainl-, in the present case, petitioner cannot see/ refu(e under the
absolutel- privile(ed co44unication rule since the false state4ents he 4ade in his petition for
naturali.ation has instead 4ade a 4oc/er- of the ad4inistration of =ustice.
The Flordelis case is li/e'ise not in point. There, ?lordelis 'as char(ed 'ith per=ur- for havin( alle(ed
false state4ents in his verified ans'er. This !ourt held that no per=ur- could be co44itted b- ?lordelis
because 6an ans'er to a co4plaint in an ordinar- civil action need not be under oath,6 thus, 6it is at
once apparent that one element of the crime of perjury is absent x x x, na4el-, that the s'orn state4ent
co4plained of must be required by law.6
",

nent the alle(ed violation of petitionerLs constitutional ri(ht to e>ual protection, suffice it to state that
such ri(ht cannot be invo/ed to protect his cri4inal act.
In People vs& #ainglet,
"#
this !ourt e4phaticall- stressed that 6ever- interest of public polic- de4ands
that perjury be not shielded by artificial refinements and narrow technicalities. ?or perjury stri)es at
the administration of the laws. It is the polic- of the la' 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.6
9H;R;?OR;, the instant petition for revie' on certiorari is hereb- D;NI;D. The appealed Decision
of the !ourt of ppeals is ??IRM;D.
SO ORD;R;D.