G.R. No. L-6861-65, December 28, 1912
THE UNITED STATES vs. GERVASIA GO CHANCO, et al.

FACTS

On November 26, 1910, five defendantsGervasia Go Chanco, Aniceta Reyes, Carlos Ortiz, Marta Sumera (alias Silvestra Rivera), and Mariano Gabrielwere separately charged with perjury. The cases were consolidated for trial. The charges stemmed from sworn testimonies given before a Board of Special Inquiry of the Bureau of Customs. The defendants testified in support of the entry into the Philippines of three Chinese boys who arrived on the steamship Yingchow. They falsely claimed, under oath, that the boys were the children of Marta Sumera, born and baptized in Manila. Evidence, including the testimony of the real Silvestra Rivera and her actual sons (who were present in Manila and matched the names on baptismal certificates), irrefutably proved the defendants’ statements were fabricated. The trial court convicted all defendants, sentencing each to six months imprisonment, a P500 fine, and disqualification from public office and giving testimony until the sentence is reversed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the complaints sufficiently alleged the crime of perjury.
2. Whether the Board of Special Inquiry was a competent tribunal authorized to administer oaths.
3. Whether the defendants were guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

1. Yes, the complaints were sufficient. The Court held that the complaints complied with the requirements under General Orders No. 58. They described the offense in the language of the statute (Section 3 of Act No. 1697), alleging all essential elements: the oath was taken before a competent officer, in a case where the law authorizes an oath, the testimony was material, and the statements were willfully false. The complaints were clear enough to inform the defendants of the charges and enable the court to render judgment.

2. Yes, the Board of Special Inquiry was a competent tribunal. The Court implicitly affirmed the board’s authority, noting that the oath was administered under Section 21 of Act No. 355 , which authorized oaths in such proceedings. The board, acting under the Bureau of Customs, had jurisdiction to conduct inquiries and administer oaths in immigration matters.

3. Yes, the defendants were guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence overwhelmingly established the falsity of the defendants’ testimonies. The real Silvestra Rivera and her sons, who were residents of Manila, were presented, proving the Chinese boys were impostors. The defendants’ claims were directly contradicted by documentary evidence (baptismal certificates) and credible witness testimony. The Court found the perjury “glaring” and upheld the convictions.

The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in all respects.