Case Summary (G.R. No. 112170)
Factual Background
On May 9, 1989, the Cotabato Provincial Governor forwarded to the Office of the Ombudsman a Sangguniang Panlalawigan resolution accusing petitioner and other DENR officials of bribery, abuse of authority, and illegal logging. Counsel Palmones requested from the Ombudsman’s Davao office a copy of the complaint. Lacking a messenger, petitioner agreed to present the letter himself but, following Perez’s advice, registered and acknowledged receipt under Perez’s name. He then departed without further incident. When Administrative Division Chief Kahulugan discovered that “Oscar Perez” was in fact Ursua, she reported the matter, prompting charges under Commonwealth Act No. 142 as amended by R.A. No. 6085 (the “anti-alias law”).
Procedural History
After the prosecution’s presentation, petitioner filed a demurrer to evidence, arguing that the State failed to prove any alias distinct from his civil registry name. The Regional Trial Court of Davao City denied the demurrer, convicted him under Sec. 1, C.A. No. 142 (as amended), and imposed an indeterminate prison term of one year and one day to four years, plus fines. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed but modified the penalty to one year to three years’ imprisonment and a P5,000 fine. Ursua then filed a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Issue
Whether petitioner’s isolated use of “Oscar Perez”—a name belonging to his lawyer’s messenger—constituted the habitual or public use of an alias in violation of Sec. 1, C.A. No. 142 as amended by R.A. No. 6085, considering his registered name in the civil registry.
Applicable Law
1987 Philippine Constitution (decision rendered April 10, 1996)
Commonwealth Act No. 142, as amended by R.A. No. 6085 (1969):
• Sec. 1 prohibits use of any name other than that registered at birth or baptism, except for court-authorized substitutes or limited pseudonyms in entertainment or athletics.
• Sec. 2 requires judicial authority and civil registry recording for any alias.
Act No. 3883, as amended by Act No. 4147 (1931-1934): Regulates business use of names other than one’s true name, requiring registration with the Bureau of Commerce.
Statutory Interpretation and Purpose
The anti-alias statute aims to prevent confusion and fraud in commercial and legal transactions by curbing habitual use of fictitious or multiple names without proper judicial authorization and civil registry recording. Historical records show the law responded to practices—particularly among certain immigrant communities—of maintaining numerous names for trade, thereby hindering accountability and transparency.
Analysis and Rationale
- Definition of Alias: Jurisprudence (e.g., Yu Kheng Chiau v. Republic, 106 Phil. 762) establishes that an alias is a name used publicly, habitually, and in addition to one’s real name, typically in business or official dealings.
- Single Instance vs. Habitual Use: Petitioner’s sole use of “Oscar Perez” to obtain a public record, without any intent to adopt it thereafter, lacks the habitual or public charac
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 112170)
Facts of the Case
- Cesario Ursua served as Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer in Kidapawan, Cotabato.
- On May 9, 1989, the Provincial Governor of Cotabato requested the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate complaints against Ursua for bribery, dishonesty, abuse of authority, and granting unwarranted benefits.
- The underlying complaint stemmed from a Sangguniang Panlalawigan resolution implicating Ursua in illegal mahogany cutting and log hauling.
- On August 1, 1989, Atty. Francis Palmones, counsel for Ursua, wrote the Ombudsman’s Davao office for a copy of the complaint.
- Petitioner—at his lawyer’s instruction—went personally to secure the document, despite being one of the respondents.
- In order to avoid using his own name, Ursua registered and signed for the record under the name “Oscar Perez,” the name of his counsel’s messenger.
- He obtained and acknowledged receipt of the complaint under that false name without indication of intent to adopt it habitually.
- The Ombudsman’s Administrative Division later learned of the impersonation and reported the incident, leading to criminal charges under C.A. No. 142, as amended.
Procedural History
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City found Ursua guilty of violating Section 1 of C.A. No. 142, as amended by R.A. No. 6085.
- Ursua was sentenced to one year and one day to four years of prision correccional, plus a P4,000 fine and accessory penalties.
- He filed a demurrer to evidence, arguing the prosecution failed to prove his registered name differed from his alleged alias. The trial court rejected this.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed guilt but modified the penalty to an indeterminate term of one to three years and increased the fine to P5,000.
- Ursua then petitioned the Su