Art.

183 Perjury
ALFONSO C. CHOA, petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and LENI CHOA, respondents.
Facts: Petitioner, Alfonso Choa, a Chinese national, filed a petition for
naturalization but withdrew the petition later on for unknown reasons. The RTC
granted the same. Meanwhile, Leni Choa, petitioners wife and respondent herein,
filed a criminal case against Alfonso for the crime of perjury under Article 183 of the
RPC. Alleging that accused made untruthful statements in his petition for
naturalization. The grounds are 1) the addressed of Leni and their children were
false despite the accuseds knowledge of the change of residents; 2) In his
statement the accused stipulated he had good moral character when in fact he is
maintaining illicit relationship with another woman and begetting two children as a
consequence. In his defense, the accused contends that there is no basis to convict
him of perjury because almost two years prior to the filing of the Information, his
motion to withdraw the petition for naturalization containing the alleged false
statements was granted by the MTCC, hence, the alleged false statements were no
longer existing or had become functus officio.
Issue: Whether the defendant can be charged with perjury despite his
withdrawal of petition for naturalization?
Ruling: Yup. The elements of perjury are:
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.14
All these elements are present in the instant case. Petitioner willfully and
deliberately alleged false statements concerning his "residence" and "moral
character" in his petition for naturalization.
The Court disagrees that petitioner could no longer be prosecuted for perjury in view of the
withdrawal of the petition for naturalization containing his false material statements. In this
jurisdiction, it is not necessary that the proceeding in which the perjury is alleged to have been
committed be first terminated before a prosecution for the said crime is commenced. When he filed
his petition for naturalization, he had committed perjury. He knew all along that he wilfully stated
material falsities in his verified petition. In brief, the withdrawal of petition for naturalization only
terminated the proceedings for it. It did not extinguish his culpability for perjury he already
committed.