Character Witness

As held in Lim versus Republic 17 SCRA 424, 427, (1996[)] citing Vy Tain vs. Republic,
L-19918, July 30, 1965.

'As construed by case law, they must have personal knowledge of the petitioner's conduct
during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines.'

Also in [the] case of Edison So vs. Republic, G.R. No. 170603, January 29, 2007
and Republic vs. Hong, G.R. No. 168877, March 24, 2006[:]

"In naturalization proceedings, the applicant has the onus to prove not only his own good
moral character but also the good moral character of his/her witnesses, who must, be
credible persons."
Both witnesses presented by petitioner made common declarations that they came to
know him [in] 1995 and became good friends with petitioner. Verily, given the birth of
petitioner in 1961, the testimony of his two (2) witnesses, Mr. La To Sy Lai and So An
Ui Henry Co Sy, that they came to know the petitioner sometime in 1995, [revealed] x x
x that they had personal cognition of petitioner's demeanor during the petitioner's
residence in the Philippines. Certainly, they see and observe the applicant continuously,
every day and every week in order to be competent to testify on his reputation and
conduct.

As for the fourth and last assigned error, the Republic claims that the petitioner-appellee
failed to present credible persons as character witnesses, and that the two persons who
testified for the petitioner-appellee resorted to mere generalizations.

Again, the Court is not persuaded.

Petitioner-appellee, presented two character witnesses: Lato Sy Lai and So An Ui Henry

Sy. Both witnesses testified in court and were cross-examined by the City Prosecutor of
Manila on such matters as how they met petitioner-appellee, how the petitioner-appellee
related to Filipinos and how petitioner-appellee has adapted to Filipino culture, customs
and traditions. We have reviewed the testimonies of these, witnesses and we find no error
on the part of the trial court when it found these witnesses credible. As held in People vs.
dela Cruz, the matter of evaluating the credibility of witnesses depends largely on the
assessment of the trial court, and appellate courts rely heavily on the weight given by the
trial court on the credibility of a witness as it had a first-hand opportunity to hear and see
the witness testify.

It must be stressed again, that despite its opportunity to do so, the Republic failed to
present any evidence or witness, to oppose the testimonial evidence presented by the
petitioner-appellee.
This is because the law requires character witnesses to be more than mere
acquaintances of the petitioner. As elucidated by the Supreme Court in the case
of Go v. Republic of the Philippines:1

“In consonance with the above dictum, in Lim Ching Tian v.

Republic,23 the Court explained that the "law requires that a
vouching witness should have actually known an applicant
for whom he testified for the requisite period prescribed
therein to give him the necessary competence to act as
such. The reason behind this requirement is that a
vouching witness is in a way an insurer of the character of
petitioner because on his testimony the court is of
necessity compelled to rely in deciding the merits of his
petition. It is, therefore, imperative that he be competent
and reliable. And he is only competent to testify on his
conduct, character and moral fitness if he has had the
opportunity to observe him personally, if not intimately,
during the period he has allegedly known him." The law, in
effect, requires that the character witnesses be not
mere ordinary acquaintances of the applicant, but
possessed of such intimate knowledge of the latter as
to be competent to testify of their personal knowledge;
and that they have each one of the requisite qualifications
and none of the statutory disqualifications.”

Thus, close friends of the petitioner may indeed be his character

witnesses provided that they possess none of the disqualifications set by
law, which are discussed in the same case cited above:

“Jurisprudence dictates that in judicial naturalization, the

application must show substantial and formal compliance
with C.A. No. 473. In other words, an applicant must
comply with the jurisdictional requirements, establish his
or her possession of the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications enumerated under the law, and present at
least two (2) character witnesses to support his
allegations.20 In Ong v. Republic of the Philippines,21 the
Court listed the requirements for character witnesses,
namely:

1. That they are citizens of the Philippines;

1
G.R. No. 202809, July 2, 2014.
 2. That they are "credible persons";

3. That they personally know the petitioner;

4. That they personally know him to be a resident of the

Philippines for the period of time required by law;

5. That they personally know him to be a person of good

repute;

6. That they personally know him to be morally

irreproachable;

7. That he has, in their opinion, all the qualifications

necessary to become a citizen of the Philippines; and

8. That he "is not in any way disqualified under the

provisions" of the Naturalization Law.

In vouching for the good moral character of the applicant

for citizenship, a witness, for purposes of naturalization,
must be a "credible" person as he becomes an insurer of
the character of the candidate.22 The Court, in Ong,
explained:

a "credible" person is, to our mind, not only an individual

who has not been previously convicted of a crime; who is
not a police character and has no police record; who has
not perjured in the past; or whose "affidavit" or testimony
is not incredible. What must be "credible" is not the
declaration made, but the person making it. This implies
that such person must have a good standing in the
community; that he is known to be honest and upright; that
he is reputed to be trustworthy and reliable; and that his
word may be taken on its face value, as a good warranty
of the worthiness of the petitioner.”

In other words, the character witnesses must have known the applicant for the period
prescribed by law and had the opportunity to observe him personally during such period,
[18]
  as well as the ability to attest to the possession by him of the requisite qualifications –
one of which is that he has "conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner
during the entire  period of his residence in the Philippines" - and to state whether or not
he believes in the principles underlying our Constitution.[19] 

Apart from the foregoing, Sec. 7 of Com. Act No. 473 requires that the character
witnesses be "credible persons," for which purpose, it must be proven, not merely that
they are not police characters, but, also, that they have such a well-established reputation
for honesty and integrity, in the community, that their word can be taken at its face value.
[20]
 

Applying the foregoing standards, We note that Idanmal Johnny Pribhdas, the petitioner
in L-23168, was born on September 5, 1928, in Manila where he resided until 1949,
when he transferred to Iloilo City.  His character witnesses – Jose A. Alvarez and
Buenaventura Sian – testified that they met him for the first time in La Paz, Iloilo, in
1950.  None of said witnesses knew anything about petitioner's life in Manila for a period
of 21 years prior thereto.  Neither did they testify that he believes in the principles
underlying our Constitution or has the qualifications and none of the disqualifications
prescribed in the Revised Naturalization Act.