Cho vs. People

The withdrawal of a petition for naturalization containing false material statements does not extinguish criminal liability for perjury, the crime being consummated upon the making of the willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood under oath on a material matter required by law.

Alfonso Chan Choa, a Chinese national, filed a verified petition for naturalization wherein he declared his and his family's residence as 46 Malaspina Street, Bacolod City, and affirmed he was of good moral character and had conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner. In truth, his wife and children had resided elsewhere since 1984, and he had been cohabiting with another woman at a different address, begetting two children with her. After partially testifying at the initial hearing, petitioner moved to withdraw the petition without stating a reason, which the trial court granted.

• The Naturalization Petition: On April 25, 1989, Alfonso Chan Choa filed a verified petition for naturalization pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 473. In the petition, he declared under oath that his residence, as well as that of his wife and children, was at 46 Malaspina Street, Villamonte, Bacolod City. He also affirmed that he was of good moral character and had conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his entire residence in the Philippines.
• The Falsity of the Declarations: Contrary to the petitioner's sworn statements, his wife and children had left the Malaspina Street residence in 1984 and were residing at Hervias Subdivision, Bacolod City. Furthermore, petitioner himself had been residing at 211 106 Street, Greenplains Subdivision, Bacolod City, where he had been carrying on an illicit relationship with another woman since 1984, begetting two children with her.
• The Withdrawal: During the initial hearing on August 27, 1990, petitioner began his direct testimony but did not finish. Two days later, he filed a motion to withdraw his petition for naturalization without stating any reason. The trial court granted the motion on September 28, 1990.
• The Perjury Charge: On August 5, 1992, nearly two years after the withdrawal, an Information for perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code was filed against the petitioner. The Information charged him with willfully making untruthful statements on material matters—specifically his residence and moral character—in his verified petition for naturalization.

• Functus Officio/Extinguishment of Liability: Petitioner maintained that the withdrawal of the naturalization petition rendered it functus officio, thereby making the alleged false statements inexistent and barring his prosecution for perjury.
• Absolute Privilege: Petitioner argued that the petition for naturalization is a pleading, and thus the allegations therein are absolutely privileged and cannot be used for criminal prosecution, citing Sison vs. David, People vs. Aquino, and Flordelis vs. Himalaloan.
• Equal Protection: Petitioner claimed that prosecuting him for perjury based on a withdrawn petition violates his constitutional right to equal protection.

• Elements of Perjury Present: Respondent countered that all the elements of perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code were duly proven, specifically the willful assertion of falsehood on material matters required by C.A. No. 473.
• Withdrawal Does Not Extinguish Liability: Respondent argued that the withdrawal of the petition merely terminated the naturalization proceedings and did not erase the criminal liability for perjury already consummated upon the filing of the sworn false statements.

• Perjury Liability: Whether a person may be convicted of perjury based on false statements made in a petition for naturalization that was subsequently withdrawn prior to the filing of the perjury Information.
• Absolute Privilege: Whether the absolute privilege accorded to pleadings in libel cases applies to statements made in a petition for naturalization to shield the petitioner from perjury charges.

• Perjury Liability: The conviction was affirmed. Perjury is consummated upon the making of a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood under oath on a material matter required by law. All elements of the crime were present when the petitioner filed his verified petition containing false declarations regarding his residence and moral character. The subsequent withdrawal of the naturalization petition merely terminated the naturalization proceedings; it did not extinguish criminal liability for a crime already consummated.
• Absolute Privilege: The absolute privilege rule does not apply. The doctrine of absolute privilege applies exclusively to civil actions for libel and slander, designed to ensure that lawyers, judges, and witnesses may speak freely in aid of the administration of justice. False statements in a naturalization petition make a mockery of the administration of justice and cannot be shielded by the privilege. Flordelis vs. Himalaloan was distinguished, as the answer in that civil case was not required by law to be under oath, whereas a naturalization petition is specifically mandated by law to be sworn.

• Elements of Perjury (Art. 183, Revised Penal Code) — For perjury to exist, the following elements must concur: (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. The Court found all these elements present in the false declarations of residence and moral character in the naturalization petition.
• Functus Officio in Perjury Prosecutions — The withdrawal of a pleading containing false sworn statements does not render it functus officio for purposes of perjury prosecution. The crime is consummated at the time the false statement is made under oath, and the subsequent termination of the proceeding where the statement was filed does not extinguish criminal culpability.
• Absolute Privilege Doctrine — The doctrine of absolute privilege has an established technical meaning in connection with civil actions for libel and slander, aimed at protecting the administration of justice. It cannot be invoked to shield perjurious statements that undermine or mock judicial proceedings.

• "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."
• "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."
• "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."

• Chua Kian Lai vs. Republic, 59 SCRA 40 (1974) — Followed. Emphasized the necessity of truthful declarations on residence and moral character in naturalization petitions; the suppression of such information might constitute falsehood signifying a lack of good moral character.
• Sison vs. David, 1 SCRA 60 (1961) — Distinguished. Involved libel; the absolute privilege rule applies to civil actions for libel and slander, not to shield perjurious statements.
• People vs. Aquino, 18 SCRA 555 (1966) — Distinguished. Involved libel; absolute privilege is granted in aid of the administration of justice, not to protect its mockery.
• Flordelis vs. Himalaloan, 84 SCRA 477 (1978) — Distinguished. Perjury was not upheld there because the answer in the civil action was not required by law to be under oath, unlike a naturalization petition.
• People vs. Cainglet, 123 Phil. 568 (1966) — Followed. Stressed that perjury strikes at the administration of laws and must not be shielded by artificial refinements.

• Article 183, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes false testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation. Applied as the statutory basis for the conviction, requiring that the sworn statement be made upon a material matter before a competent officer and be required by law.
• Section 2, Commonwealth Act No. 473 — Enumerates the qualifications for Philippine citizenship by naturalization, including the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character and have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner. Used to establish the materiality of the petitioner's false statements regarding his moral character.
• Section 7, Commonwealth Act No. 473 — Prescribes the contents of the petition for citizenship, requiring the petitioner to state his present and former places of residence, as well as the residence of his wife and children. Used to establish that the false declaration of residence was a willful assertion of falsehood on a matter specifically required by law.

Puno (Chairman), Panganiban, Corona, and Carpio-Morales