323 Phil. 438
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
That on or about the 30th day of March, 1989, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly made untruthful statements of [sic] falsehoods upon material matters required by the Revised Naturalization Law (C.A. No. 473) in his verified "Petition for Naturalization" dated April 13, 1989, subscribed and sworn to before Notary Public Felomino B. Tan, Jr., who is authorized to administer oath[s], which petition bears Doc. No. 140; Page No. 29; Book No. XXIII; and Series of 1989, in the Notarial Register of said Notary Public, by stating therein the following, to wit:The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 50322 and was assigned to Branch III thereof where the respondent is the presiding Judge.
5. 1 am married to a Filipino. My wife’s name is Leni Ong Choa and now resides at 46 Malaspina Street, Bacolod City. I have two (2) children, whose names, dates and places of birth, and residences are as follows:
NAME DATE OF BIRTH PLACE OF BIRTH RESIDENCE ALBRYAN ONG CHOA July 19, 1981 Bacolod City 46 Malaspina St., Bacolod City CHERYL LYNNE ONG CHOA May 5, 1983 Bacolod City 46 Malaspina St., Bacolod Cityxxx
10. I am of good moral character, I believe in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution. I have conducted myself in a proper and irreprQachable manner during the entire period of my residence in the Philippines in my relations with the constituted government as well as with the community in which 1 am living.xxx
When in truth and in fact said accused knew that his wife Leni Ong Choa and their two (2) children were not then residing at the said address at No. 46 Malaspina Street, Villamonte, Bacolod City, having left the aforesaid residence in 1984, or about five (5) years earlier and were then residing at Hervias Subdivision, Bacolod City, that contrary to his aforesaid allegations in his verified Petition for Naturalization, accused while residing at 211, 106 Street, Greenplains Subdivision, Bacolod City, has been carrying on an immoral and illicit relationship with one Stella Flores Saludar, a woman not his wife since 1984, and begotting [sic] two (2) children with her as a consequence, as he and his wife, the private offended party herein, have long been separated from bed and boards [sic] since 1984; which falsehoods and/ or immoral and improper conduct are grounds for disqualifications [sic] of [sic] becoming a citizen of the Philippines.
Act contrary to law.
(1) The respondent Judge is guilty of Grave Misconduct, Gross Bias and Partiality, and Knowingly Rendering An Unjust Judgment when he intentionally failed to divulge the next-door-neighbor relationship between him and the family of Leni Ong Choa and to disqualify himself from sitting in the criminal case on such ground as part of the grand design and preconceived intention to unjustly convict the complainant of the crime charged without due process.The respondent Judge refutes the charge in his Comment dated 12 September 1995, thus:
(2) The allegations in the Information do not constitute the offense of perjury.
(3) The petition having been withdrawn with finality, it has become functus oficio and it is as if the Petition was not filed at all so that whatever false statemeuts were contained therein were no longer requiredby law and had ceased to be on a material matter.
(4) The respondent Judge admitted for prosecution Exhibit "P" (handwritten list of properties) even if this was self-serving as it was undated and unsigned; and Exhibit "Q" (letter of Leni Ong Choa’s counsel to the complainant) even if it was also self-serving as there was no showing that he received the letter.
(5) The respondent Judge has sentenced the complainant to suffer a penalty higher than that provided by law, without applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
He denies being the next-door-neighbor of Leni Ong Choa there being a house, belonging to the Sia family, separating his house and that of Leni Choa; he and the rest of the members of his family are not acquainted with Leni Choa or any member of her family and had not exchanged greetings nor is he even a nodding acquaintance of Leni Choa or any member of her family.The respondent Judge then prays for the dismissal of the complaint for being patently without merit and for the censure and reprimand of the complainant’s counsel with a warning to refrain from filing similar harassment suits.
He asserts that if the allegations in the Information do not constitute an offense, the complainant should have filed a Motion to Quash but he did not. Just the same, when the complainant stated in the Petition that he together with his wife and children lived at 46 Malaspina St., Bacolod City, he committed a falsehood under oath because the truth is two (2) years before the filing of the Petition, his wife and two (2) children were not living with him anymore, making him liable for perjury.
Respondent also avers that the complainant is not of good moral character contrary to what he stated in the Petition for Naturalization since he is conducting an extra-marital relationship with Stella Flores Saludar, his former employee, with whom he has begotten two (2) children. As a matter of fact, a case for concubinage against complainant was filed and is now pending in Court.
According to the respondent, a reading of the Order granting the Motion to Withdraw the Petition will show that the Prosecutor representing the Office of the Solicitor General opposed the Motion to Withdraw the Petition for the reason that the complainant had abandoned his wife and two (2) children, is not giving them support and is now living with his paramour.
On the claim of the complainant that his petition for naturalization has became functus officio in view of its withdrawal, hence no longer existent, the respondent Judge maintains that the withdrawal reduced the petition to functus officio only for the purpose of the Special Proceedings. but not when it is used as evidence in other cases.
On the issue of the admissibility of the Exhibits P. Q and R, the respondent Judge contends that Exhibits P. Q and R were duly identified by Leni Ong Choa and her testimonies on these were found to be credible by the Court.
Finally, respondent Judge asserts that the Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable in the perjury case as the penalty imposed by the court did not exceed one (1) year.
EVALUATION: A careful study of the records shows that the allegations of the complainant are devoid of any merit.We fully agree with Deputy Court Administrator Elepaflo that the allegations in the complaint are utterly devoid of merit. Good faith and good motive did not seem to have inspired the filing of the complaint.
The charge that respondent Judge and Leni Choa are neighbors [sic] appears to be petty under the circumstances. Granting that they are indeed next-door neighbors does not necessarily mean that respondent Judge has violated Rule 137 of the Rules of Court for Disqualification of Judges. Nowhere in said Rule is it ordained that being the neighbor of a party-litigant is reason enough for the Judge to disqualify himself from hearing the former’s case.
With respect to the complainant’s claim that the allegations in the information do not constitute the offense of perjury, an administrative proceeding is not the forum to decide whether the judge has erred or not, especially as complainant has appealed his conviction.
Even if the matter can be examined, we do not find any error in the Court’s decision.
The elements of perjury as enumerated in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Bautista (C.A., 40 O.G. 2491) are as follows:
(a) Statement in the affidavit upon material matter made under oath;
(b) The affiant swears to the truthfulness of the statements in his affidavit before a competent officer authorized to administer oath;
(c) There is a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood; and
(d) Sworn statement containing the falsity is required by law.
It cannot be denied that the petition for naturalization filed by Alfonso C. Choa was made under oath and before a competent officer authorized to administer oath as shown by the records (p. 4, APPENDIX "A"). This petition for naturalization is required by law as a condition precedent for the grant of Philippine citizenship (Section 7 Corn. Act No. 473).
The question now boils down to whether there is a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood.
As shown by the records (p. 1, APPENDIX "A"), Alfonso C. Choa declared in his petition dated 30 March 1989 that his wife Leni Ong Choa resides at 46 Ma!aspina St. Bacolod City while in the administrative complaint he filed against respondent Judge, he stated that his wife Leni Ong Choa left their family residence (46 Malaspina St., Bacolod City) in the latter part of 1984 (p. 6, par. 2 of Adrn. Complaint). This simply means that when he filed his petition for naturalization, Leni Ong Choa was not residing at the abovementioned address anymore.
It was also proven that Alfonso C. Choa had a child with a woman not his wife and he himself signed the birth certificate as the father of that child (p. 4, APPENDIX "E"). This is contrary to what he declared in his petition that he is of good moral character which is required under the Naturalization Law (par. 3, Sec. 2 Corn. Act No. 473).
There was therefore a deliberate assertion of falsehood by Alfonso C.. Choa to warrant conviction for perjury as found by Judge Chiongson.
As to the complainant’s claim that the withdrawal of the petitiorr makes it functus officio, we sustain the respondent Judge’s view that the Petition can be used as evidence in another case. In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Cainglet (16 SCRA 748) the Court held that "every interest of public policy demands that perjury be not shielded by artificial refinements and narrow technicalities. For perjury strikes at the very administration of the laws (Jay vs. State, [1916] 15 Ala. App. 255, 43 So. 137). It is the policy of the law that judicial proceedings and judgment shall be fair and free from fraud, Sand that litigants and parties be encouraged to tell the truth and that they be punished if they do not (People vs. Niles, 300 III., 458, 133 N.E. 252,37 A.R.L. 1284, 1289)."
On whether the judge erred in not applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law to the case, we cite Section 2 of R.A. N’o. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law) which provides in part that "This Act shall not apply to x x x those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year, x x x" Since the penalty for perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code is arresto mayor in its maximum period which is one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months toprision correccional in its minimum period which is six (6) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months, the respondent Judge was correct in not applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
As earlier stated, the foregoing discussion is in no way the final appreciation of the Court’s decision which is on appeal, but is made only to illustrate the utter lack of merit of this charge. Counsel for the complainant must be reprimanded for assisting in the filing of this complaint.
Deputy Court Administrator Elepaflo then recommends:
Premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that this complaint against Judge Roberto S. Chiongson be DISMISSED for lack of merit. It is further recommended that Atty. Raymundo A. Quiroz be REPRIMANDED for assisting in the filing of a patently unmeritorious complaint.