I.

INTRODUCTION/PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS/JURISDICTION
General priniciples: David v. Agbay, G.R. No. 199113, 18 March 2015, 753 SCRA 526
David vs. Agbay G.R. No. 199113 March 18, 2015 Retroactivity of laws, Citizenship, R.A.
9225
AUGUST 4, 2018
FACTS:

Petitioner migrated to Canada where he became a Canadian citizen by naturalization. Upon

retirement, petitioner and his wife returned to the Philippines and purchased a lot along the
beach in Oriental Mindoro where they constructed a residential house. However, the portion
where they built their house is public land and part of the salvage zone.

Petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application (MLA) over the subject land with the DENR. In
the said application, petitioner indicated that he is a Filipino citizen.

Private respondent Editha Agbay opposed the application on the ground that petitioner, a
Canadian citizen, is disqualified to own land. She also filed a criminal complaint for falsification of
public documents under Article 172 of the RPC against the petitioner.

Meanwhile, petitioner re-acquired his Filipino citizenship under the provisions of Republic Act No.
9225.

The CENRO rejected petitioner’s MLA, ruling that petitioner’s subsequent re-acquisition of
Philippine citizenship did not cure the defect in his MLA which was void ab initio.

An information for Falsification of Public Document was filed before the MTC and a warrant of
arrest was issued against the petitioner.

Since the crime for which petitioner was charged was alleged and admitted to have been
committed before he had re- acquired his Philippine citizenship, the MTC concluded that
petitioner was at that time still a Canadian citizen.

Petitioner elevated the case to the RTC via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the MTC. The petition was denied.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner may be indicted for falsification for representing himself as a Filipino in
his Public Land Application despite his subsequent re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship under
the provisions of R.A. 9225.

RULING:

Considering that petitioner was naturalized as a Canadian citizen prior to the effectivity of R.A.
9225, he belongs to the first category of natural- born Filipinos under the first paragraph of
Section 3 who lost Philippine citizenship by naturalization in a foreign country. As the new law
allows dual citizenship, he was able to re-acquire his Philippine citizenship by taking the required
oath of allegiance.
 For the purpose of determining the citizenship of petitioner at the time of filing his MLA, it is not
necessary to discuss the rulings in Frivaldo and Altarejos on the retroactivity of such reacquisition
because R.A. 9225 itself treats those of his category as having already lost Philippine citizenship,
in contradistinction to those natural-born Filipinos who became foreign citizens after R.A. 9225
came into force. In other words, Section 2 declaring the 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
the new law’s effectivity.

Petitioner made the untruthful statement in the MLA, a public document, that he is a Filipino
citizen at the time of the filing of said application, when in fact he was then still a Canadian
citizen.

Under CA 63, the governing law at the time he was naturalized as Canadian citizen, naturalization
in a foreign country was among those ways by which a natural-born citizen loses his Philippine
citizenship. While he re-acquired 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 finding probable cause
for falsification of public document under Article 172, paragraph

Dates:
Violation Art. 172, falsification of public documents (2) appeal for the rejection of
MLA by DENR

 1974 – migrated to Canada and has been naturalized

 2000 – retired and return to Philippines, bought lot along the beach and built a residential house
 2004 – discovered that the portion of the lot is a public land and part of salvage zone
 April 2007 – filed an MLA with DENR and stated in the application that he is a Filipino citizen
 October 2007 – re-acquired his Filipino citizenship
 January 2008 – indicted in violation of Art. 172, falsification of documents. Petitioner challenged
the resolution for DOJ review.
 June 2008 – CLENRO denied his MLA in a ruling that the petitioner’s re-acquisition of Filipino
citizenship doesn’t cure the defect of the in his MLA, void ab initio. Cannot own a land.
 July 2010 – DOJ denied the petition for review re: falsification thus petitioner was issued warrant
of arrest
 February 2011 – filed an Urgent Motion for Re-Determination of Probable Cause in MTC
 March 2011 – Petition for certiorari was filed stating that MTC grave abuse of discretion due to
(1) jurisdiction of person of an accused cannot be a pre-condition for the re-determination of
probable cause; (2)

2. Revised Penal Code No. 3815

 Criminal law – substantive law which defines crimes, treats of its nature and provides for its
punishment.
 Special laws – those that are not in penal code

3. Characteristics of Criminal law:

 General in application.
 Territorial, which means that the venue whether municipal or international, is jurisdictional.
- The national territory of the Philippines comprises of its territorial, fluvial and aerial domain, as
well as maritime zone.
- Maritime zone: international 3 geographical miles away from the shore, starting at the low
watermark; For Ph: archipelagic; 12 nautical miles and 200 nautical miles for exclusive economic
zone, outward the shore.
 - Exception: can be exercised even outside the Philippine archipelago, but also outside of its
jurisdiction for those who:
1. Commit offense while on ph ship or airship
2. Forge or counterfeit coin or any currency note of ph
3. While being public officers or emmployees, commit an offense in the exercise of its function
4. Commit any of the crimes against national security and law of nations
5. Foreign merchant vessels within territorial vessels
Ph criminal justice system applies English territorial rule, wherein the country will have
jurisdiction over such offenses unless its only for internal management of the vessel.

 Prospective, which means that law has no retrospective effect unless, favorable to the accused.

Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases:

i. Municipal/Metropolitan Trial Courts
a. Sections 32, 35, BP 129, as amended
b. AM No. 00-01-SC, 25 March 2003
c. Section 1 (b), Rules on Summary Procedure

ii. Regional Trial Courts

a. Sections 20, 22, 23, BP 129, as amended
b. Section 90, RA 9165
c. Section 5, RA 8369
d. AM No. 03-03-03-SC, 1 July 2003
e. Case: People v. Yadao, G.R. No. 162144-54, 13 November 2012, 685
SCRA 264

iii. Sandiganbayan
a. Section 4, Sandiganbayan Law, as amended by RA 10660

iv. Court of Tax Appeals

a. Section 7, RA 1125 as amended by RA 9262

v. Court of Appeals

vi. Supreme Court

II. ADDITIONAL/QUESTIONS
1. Additional Readings
a. Department Circular No. 11
b. Department Circular No. 020
2. Links
a. Characteristics of Criminal Law
https://ralblaw.com/characteristics-of-criminal-law/?fbclid=IwAR316Lg4NJ5u-
7gcq1ZEC38MI9Vn2TYJvpGfD2QBlxpcbNVrWWnPzngz5v8#:~:text=These%20are%3A,unless
%20favorable%20to%20the%20accused
b. Revised Manual for Prosecutors
https://www.studocu.com/ph/document/philippine-law-school/remedial-law/2017-revised-
manual-of-prosecutors-vol-1/23395066?shared=n&sid=01690730745

c.
3. Questions