Ursua vs. CA, GR No.

116607, April 10, 1996

CESARIO URSUA, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

CASE SUMMARY

A petition to review the ruling of the appellate court affirming the conviction of herein
petitioner of the crime committed under the amended act, R.A. No. 6085 a.k.a An Act to
Regulate the Use of Aliases.

Regional Trial Court Court of Appeals Supreme Court

Guilty of crime charged. Affirmed conviction by lower Reversed and set aside.
court, but modified the
penalty imposed.

FACTS OF THE CASE

A complaint was issued against Cesario Ursua, Community Environment and Natural Resources
Officer assigned in Kidapawan. The complaint contains charges of bribery, dishonesty, abuse of
authority, and giving of unwarranted benefits by herein petitioner.

One day, the petitioner’s counsel, Atty. Frances Palmones wrote the Office of the Ombudsman
for the request of complaint copy against the Ursua. Atty. Palmones requested Ursua to bring the
letter to the Office of the Ombudsman, since their law firm’s messenger, Oscar Perez, was
unavailable at the time. Petitioner obliged the request but was concerned that he would be
recognized by the Ombudsman as one of his respondents. Upon learning of this, Oscar Perez
informed the petitioner that he may use his name to acknowledge the receipt of the complaint
from the Office of the Ombudsman.

Consequently, Ursua went to the Office of Ombudsman and committed the following the acts:

(1) Signed as Oscar Perez in the logbook upon entering the premises; and
(2) Signed as Oscar Perez to acknowledge the receipt of the complaint.

Ursua was discovered to have used another name due to the fact that Chief of the Administrative
Division, Ms. Loida Kahulugan, overheard Josefa Amparo calling him by the name Cesario
Ursua instead of Oscar Perez.

Contentions of the petitioner:

 Not guilty of the crime charged.

 He was never known as Oscar Perez, and he only used the name on that occasion and not
on a usual basis in relation to legal matters such as business transactions.
 The prosecution has failed to establish the connection between his supposed alias and his
name in the civil registry.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

I. Did the CA err in affirming the conviction of the crime of violating Sec. 1 of C.A.
No. 142 as amended by R.A. No. 6085?
II. Is the act committed be charged under Article 172 par 1, Book II of the Revised Penal
Code? (Issue relevant to the Book II RPC discussion)

RULING:

I. Yes, CA erred in affirming the conviction of herein petitioner of the crime of

violating Sec. 1 of C.A. No. 142 as amended by R.A. No. 6085.

Pursuant to Sec. 1 of C.A. No. 142 as amended by R.A. No. 6085, it provides:

Sec. 1. Except as a pseudonym for literary purposes, no person shall use any
name different from the one with which he was christened or by which he has
been known since his childhood, or such substitute name as may have been
authorized by a competent court. The name shall comprise the patronymic
name and one or two surnames.

Sec. 2. Any person desiring to use an alias or aliases shall apply for authority
therefor in proceedings like those legally provided to obtain judicial
authority for a change of name. Separate proceedings shall be had for each alias,
and each new petition shall set forth the original name and the alias or aliases for
the use of which judicial authority has been, obtained, specifying the proceedings
and the date on which such authority was granted. Judicial authorities for the use
of aliases shall be recorded in the proper civil register . . . .

And in view of the application of the law, the Court in Yu Kheng Chiau v. Republic
clearly explained the meaning of alias; a name used by a person publicly and
habitually in usual business transactions, other than the name registered in the civil
registry, and such name shall be duly authorized by court.

In the case at bar, the use of Oscar Perez by the petitioner was proven to be an
isolated case, and therefore not covered by the crime committed in violation of Sec. 1
of C.A. No. 142 as amended by R.A. No. 6085 which was enacted to regulate the use
of aliases which are used in a habitually manner in doing business transactions in
general.
II. Yes, petitioner is guilty of the crime under par 1 of Article 172 of Book II of the
Revised Penal Code.

Pursuant to Article 172 Falsification by private individual and use of falsified

documents – Penalty of prision correcional and a fine not to exceed One million
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 of the kind of commercial document;
….

Par. 2 of the preceding Article 171:

(2) Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when
they did not in fact so participate.
….

In the case at bar, despite being a public officer in view of his position as a
Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer assigned in Kidapawan, the
petitioner did not take advantage of his position to commit the falsification of the
official document in the Office of the Ombudsman upon signing the logbook and
document acknowledging the receipt of the complaint. The act committed by the
petitioner is in purview of the crime defined in par. 2 of the preceding Article 171:

Herein petitioner signed the name of Oscar Perez causing it to appear that the real
Oscar Perez did in fact participated in receiving the complaint copy furnished by the
Office of Ombudsman.