Case Digest

Choa v Chiongson

Facts:

 May 30, 1989- herein accused, Alfonso Choa did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously
and knowingly made untruthful statements of falsehoods upon material matters required by the
Revised Naturalization Law in his verified Petition for Naturalization dated April 13, 1989.
 After trial, Judge Chiongson rendered judgment and found Choa herein guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of perjury. The respondent Judge accordingly sentenced him to
suffer the penalty of six months and one day of prision correccional and to pay the costs.
 Choa moved for a reconsideration of the judgment but was subsequently denied for lack of
merit. He then filed the instant complaint against Judge Chiongson and prayed for the latter’s
removal from office alleging, inter alia, that he is guilty of grave misconduct; that respondent
judge has sentenced the complainant to suffer a penalty higher than that provided by law,
without applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Judge Chiongson refutes the charge.

Issue:

 Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of grave misconduct and erred in not applying the
ISL?

Held:

 No, ISL substantially provides that the Act shall not apply to those penalties whose maximum
term of imprisonment does not exceed one year. 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 to prision correccional in its minimum period which is six (6) months
and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months.
 In additional, Atty. Raymundo A. Quiroz, counsel for the complainant, must have been aware of
the utter lack of merit of the charges against the respondent. As a Member of the Philippine Bar
he is bound: (1) by his oath, not to, wittingly or willingly, promote or sue any groundless, false,
or unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent to the same; (2) by Section 20(c), Rule 138 of the Rules
of Court, to counsel or maintain such action or proceedings only as appear to him to be just; and
(3) to uphold the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 Therefore, the instant complaint is dismissed. And for the reasons above stated, Atty. Quiroz is
hereby directed to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with for his apparent
failure to comply with his duties and responsibilities above stated.