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 their sworn testimonies before a Board of Special Inquiry of the Bureau of Customs, supporting the entry of three Chinese boys into the Philippines. The defendants testified that the boys were the children of Marta Sumera, born and baptized in Manila. However, evidence revealed that the real Silvestra Rivera and her three sons, whose baptismal certificates were presented, were actual residents of Manila. The defendants’ testimonies were thus proven false. They were convicted and sentenced to six months imprisonment, a P500 fine, and disqualification from public office and giving testimony. They appealed, assigning errors regarding the sufficiency of the complaints, the competence of the Board of Special Inquiry, and the proof of guilt.

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’ guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

1. Yes, the complaints were sufficient. The Court held that per the rules, a complaint is sufficient if it states facts enabling a person of common understanding to know the charge and allows the court to render judgment. The complaints tracked the language of Section 3 of Act No. 1697, defining perjury, and alleged all essential elements: the oath was taken before a competent officer, in a case authorized by law, the testimony was material and willfully false. Thus, the demurrer was properly overruled.

2. Yes, the Board of Special Inquiry was a competent tribunal. The Court found that the Board, acting under the Bureau of Customs, was duly authorized by law (Section 21 of Act No. 355 ) to administer oaths in immigration matters. Therefore, it was a competent body before which perjury could be committed.

3. Yes, guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence conclusively showed the falsity of the defendants’ testimonies. The real Silvestra Rivera and her sons were presented, proving the defendants’ claims fraudulent. The defendants’ falsehoods were material to the immigration inquiry. The Court found no doubt as to their guilt.

The convictions were AFFIRMED in all respects.