CESARIO URSUA, petitioner v. COURT OF APPEALS AND
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents
G.R. No. 112170. April 10,1996.
Facts:
On May 9,1989, provincial governor of Cotabato requested the Office of the Ombudsman to conduct an investigation regarding bribery, dishonesty, abuse of authority and giving of unwarranted benefits and it was found out that the petitioner Cesario Ursua, a Community Environment and Natural Resources officer was involved in the illegal cutting of mahogany trees and illegally-cut logs in the area. So, a complaint was filed against him which was initiated by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
On August 1 1989, Atty. Francis Palmones, counsel for petitioner, wrote to the Office of the Ombudsman to furnished him a copy of the complaint and asked petitioner to bring that letter to the Office of the Ombudsman since his messenger had to attend to some personal matters which the latter complied. Before proceeding to the office of the Ombudsman, he talked to Oscar Perez and the latter advised him that he could sign his name if ever he would be required to acknowledge receipt of the complaint. When he arrived at the Office of the Ombudsman in Davao City, he was asked to sign his name on a log book and instead of writing his own name, he wrote “Oscar Perez”, afterwhich he proceeded to the Administrative Division and hand in the letter to Loida Kahulugan, Chief of the Administrative Division in order to get a furnished copy of the complaint. Before petitioner left, he was greeted by an acquaintance and from there Loida learned that the one who introduced his name as Oscar Perez is actually the petitioner himself so the latter reported the matter immediately to the Deputy Ombudsman who ordered that petitioner be accordingly charged.
On December 18,1990 petitioner without leave of court filed a demurrer to evidence alleging that the failure of the prosecution to prove that his supposed alias was different from his registered name was fatal to its cause. Petitioner contends that no document from the civil registry was presented to show the registered name of the accused which according to him was a condition sine qua non for the validity of his conviction.The RTC rejected his contentions and found him guilty of violating Sec.1 of Commonwealth Act No.142 as amended by R.A. No.6085. On May 31,1993, The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the said petitioner. Petitioner appealed to the C.A. contending that he has not violated C.A. No.142 as amended by R.A. No.6085 as he never used any alias name, he only used such name on one occasion with an express consent of Oscar Perez himself.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner has violated Sec.1 of Commonwealth Act No.142 as amended by R.A.6085 or otherwise known as An Act to Regulate the Use of Aliases.
Ruling:
No, the petitioner did not violateSec.1 of C.A No.142 as amended by R.A. 6085. The court ruled that there is no evidence showing that he had used or was intending to used that name in addition to his real name. That name was used in an isolated transaction where he was not even legally required to expose his real identity. While the act may be covered by other provisions of law, it does not constitute an offense within the concept of C.A. No.142
Section 1 of Commonwealth ActNo.142 provides that except as a pseudonym solely for literary, cinema, television, radio or other entertainment purposes and in athletic events where the use of a pseudonym is a normally accepted practice, no person shall use any name different from the one which he was registered at birth in the office of the civil registry or with which he was baptized for the first time, or in case of an alien, with which he was registered in the Bureau of Immigration upon entry, or such substitute name as may have been authorized by a competent court provided, that persons whose births have not been registered in any local civil registry and who have not been baptized, have one one year from the approval of this act within which to register their names in the civil registry of their residence. The name shall comprise the patronymic name and one or two surnames.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner CESARIO URSUA is acquitted of the crime charged.
