David vs. Agbay
David vs. Agbay
David vs. Agbay
DAVID,
Petitioner,
- versus -
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Present:
PERALTA,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
REYES, and
PERLAS-BERNABE,* JJ.
Promulgated:
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ti-~- ----x
DECISION
Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, which denied the petition for certiorari filed
meter lot along the beach in Tambong, Gloria, Oriental Mindoro where they
know that the portion where they built their house is public land and part of
~·
Application3
Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) (I.S. No. 08-6463) against the
petitioner.
Meanwhile, petitioner re-acquired his Filipino citizenship under the
Filipino. He further alleged that he bought the property from the Agbays
who misrepresented to him that the subject property was titled land and they
have the right and authority to convey the same. The dispute had in fact led
to the institution of civil and criminal suits between him and private
respondent’s family.
On January 8, 2008,6
Resolution7
Article 172 of the RPC and recommending the filing of the corresponding
citizenship did not cure the defect in his MLA which was void ab initio.
In the meantime, on July 26, 2010, the petition for review filed by
petitioner was denied by the DOJ which held that the presence of the
Id. at 32.
AN ACT MAKING THE CITIZENSHIP OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENS WHO ACQUIRE FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP
PERMANENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 63, AS AMENDED, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES. 5
Rollo, p. 33. 6
Id. at 34-35.
falsification.9
Document was filed before the MTC (Criminal Case No. 2012) and a
On February 11, 2011, after the filing of the Information and before
upon by petitioner, the said court denied the motion, holding that R.A. 9225
makes a distinction between those who became foreign citizens during its
effectivity, and those who lost their Philippine citizenship before its
enactment when the governing law was Commonwealth Act No. 6311 (CA
63). Since the crime for which petitioner was charged was alleged and
admitted to have been committed on April 12, 2007 before he had re-
acquired his Philippine citizenship, the MTC concluded that petitioner was
SO ORDERED.
12
foregoing order denying him relief on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and
insisted that the issue raised is purely legal. He argued that since his
application had yet to receive final evaluation and action by the DENR
after he applied for lease of public land. The MTC denied the motion for
reconsideration.14
for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the MTC. He asserted that first, jurisdiction over the person of an accused
disregarded the legal fiction that once a natural-born Filipino citizen who
R.A. 9225, his Filipino citizenship is thus deemed not to have been lost on
act of falsification was already consummated as petitioner has not yet re-
Id. at 50-53.
10 Id. at 54-58.
11 AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE WAYS IN WHICH PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP MAY BE LOST OR
REACQUIRED,
14 Id. at 76.
16 Id. at 65-67.
Philippine citizenship will only affect his citizenship status and not his
criminal act which was long consummated prior to said oath of allegiance.
On October 8, 2011, the RTC issued the assailed Order denying the
proceed to trial where he can make use of his claim to be a Filipino citizen
SO ORDERED.
17
under R.A. No. 9225 he was by legal fiction “deemed not to have
citizenship.
lower court has pre-empted the right of petitioner through his wife
for the sake of argument that such doctrine applies in the present situation, it
will still not work for petitioner’s cause for the simple reason that he had not
alleged, much less proved, that he had already applied for reacquisition of
of public document, it is not necessary that the idea of gain or intent to injure
blown trial.
Solicitor General opines that in seeking an affirmative relief from the MTC
ruled that the lower court committed no grave abuse of discretion in denying
citizenship under the provisions of R.A. 9225; and (2) the MTC properly
the State that all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another
the Republic:
the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and legal
supplied)
While Section 2 declares the general policy that Filipinos who have
become citizens of another country shall be deemed “not to have lost their
of this Act.” Section 3 lays down such conditions for two categories of
the first paragraph are those natural-born Filipinos who have lost their
who became foreign citizens after R.A. 9225 took effect, who shall retain
their Philippine citizenship upon taking the same oath. The taking of oath of
different, “re-acquired” for the first group, and “retain” for the second group.
who became foreign citizens before and after the effectivity of R.A. 9225.
the authors of the law intentionally employed the terms “re-acquire” and
“retain” to describe the legal effect of taking the oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines. This is also evident from the title of the law
In fine, for those who were naturalized in a foreign country, they shall
the ways by which Philippine citizenship may be lost. As its title declares,
R.A. 9225 amends CA 63 by doing away with the provision in the old law
citizens after R.A. 9225 took effect, they shall retain Philippine citizenship
despite having acquired foreign citizenship provided they took the oath of
of the law which favors the accused is preferred because it is consistent with
January 31, 201122 of the Bureau of Immigration (BI) to his query, stating
R.A. 9225.
21 AASJS (Advocates and Adherents of Social Justice for School Teachers and Allied Workers) v.
4720 and Senate Bill No. 2130 held on August 18, 2003, where Senator
Javier:
effectivity of this Act, shall... and so forth, ano, shall retain their
Philippine citizenship.
effectivity of this act are considered to have retained their citizenship. But
effectivity of this act are considered to have reacquired. May I know the
let’s say, American citizens after the effectivity of this act are considered
natural-born?
Now in the second paragraph are the natural-born citizens who lost
their citizenship before the effectivity of this act are no longer natural born
citizens because they have just reacquired their citizenship. I just want to
Commonwealth Act 63, the Filipinos who lost their citizenship is deemed
act.
REP. JAVIER. Well, I’m just asking this question because we are
law.
on. It’s one of the provisions, yes. But just for purposes of the
virtue of Commonwealth Act 63, and retention for those in the future.
(Emphasis supplied)
born Filipinos under the first paragraph of Section 3 who lost Philippine
of filing his MLA, it is not necessary to discuss the rulings in Frivaldo and
policy that considers Filipinos who became foreign citizens as not to have
lost their Philippine citizenship, should be read together with Section 3, the
second paragraph of which clarifies that such policy governs all cases after
statutes are construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the
23 People v. Temporada, 594 Phil. 680, 735 (2008), citing People v. Ladjaalam, 395 Phil. 1, 35 (2000). 24
Art. 172. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents. – The penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than 5,000 pesos shall be
imposed upon:
1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next
preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of
2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such damage,
shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding
article.
Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or to the
damage of another or who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any of the false documents
embraced in the next preceding article, or in any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article, shall be
punished by the penalty next lower in degree. 25 ART. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or
notary or ecclesiastical minister. — The
penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public
public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official
commercial document.26
application, when in fact he was then still a Canadian citizen. Under CA 63,
Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225 six months later, the falsification was
already a consummated act, the said law having no retroactive effect insofar
as his dual citizenship status is concerned. The MTC therefore did not err in
172, paragraph 1.
However, custody of the law is not required for the adjudication of reliefs
28 which involved
between custody of the law and jurisdiction over the person, and held that
jurisdiction over the person of the accused is deemed waived when he files
officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning;
document when no such original exists, or including in such copy a statement contrary to, or different
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry,
or official book.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of
the offenses enumerated in the preceding paragraphs of this article, with respect to any record or
document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons. 26 Panuncio v.
People, 610 Phil. 595, 603-604 (2009). 27 Jimenez v. Sorongon, G.R. No. 178607, December 5, 2012, 687
SCRA 151, 161, citing Alawiya, et al.
v. Court of Appeals, et al., 603 Phil. 264, 276 (2009); and Miranda v. Tuliao, 520 Phil. 907, 919
the special jurisdiction of the court by impugning such jurisdiction over his
person. Thus:
surrender.
custody of the law and jurisdiction over the person. Custody of the law is
required before the court can act upon the application for bail, but is not
lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused. Custody of the law is
accomplished either by arrest or voluntary surrender, while jurisdiction
over the person of the accused is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary
appearance. One can be under the custody of the law but not yet subject to
the jurisdiction of the court over his person, such as when a person
the warrant. On the other hand, one can be subject to the jurisdiction of
the court over his person, and yet not be in the custody of the law, such as
when an accused escapes custody after his trial has commenced. Being in
the custody of the law signifies restraint on the person, who is thereby
deprived of his own will and liberty, binding him to become obedient to
the will of the law. Custody of the law is literally custody over the body of
xxxx
xxxx
of the court even though there is neither jurisdiction over the person nor
custody of the law. However, if a person invoking the special jurisdiction
of the court applies for bail, he must first submit himself to the custody of
erroneous ground stated in the MTC's order, the RTC correctly ruled that no
grave abuse of discretion was committed by the MTC in denying the said