G. R. No. L-11489. December 23, 1957

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila.  The appeal has been  certified to us by the Court of Appeals as raising only a question of law.

It appears that the appellant Uy Jui Pio was charged in the municipal court of Manila with a violation of Commonwealth Act No.  142  for using  publicly a name different from the one with which he was christened  or by which he  had  been known since childhood.  Convicted in  that court, he  appealed to the Court of First Instance, where the case was submitted for decision solely upon  the admissions made by him at the hearing.  Those admissions  were to the effect that he had been known since childhood “by the name of Uy Jui Pio alias Juanito Uy”; that he  was also known in school  “as Uy Jui Pio alias Juanito Uy”; that the records  of  the Bureau of Immigration from the year  1946 “would  also bear (out) the same name of Uy Jui Pio  alias Juanito Uy”; that “since 1936  until the passage  of Commonwealth Act 142”, he had been using that name; and that in his marriage  contract he signed the name “Juanito Uy” to  conform to the name already typewritten thereon by  someone else.

On the basis  of the above admissions, the trial court found defendant to have violated section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 142 by adopting  the name “Juanito Uy” “when he was already named in his own country as ‘Uy Jui Pio’.” The conviction cannot stand.

Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 142 reads:

“SECTION 1. Except as a pseudonym for literary purposes, no person snail 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.”

In forbidding the  use of a name different  from that by which  one has been known since childhood, this section, by necessary, implication, allows the  use of the latter.   Defendant, therefore, had  the right to use the name “Juanito Uy”  because  he has since childhood  been known by that name.

It  is contended,  however, that the name  “Juanito Uy” is an alias and defendant is. not authorized to  use it without judicial authorization in view of section 2 of this Act which reads:

SEC. 2. Any person  desiring to use an alias  or aliases  shall  apply for authority therefore 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 authority for the use of aliases shall be recorded in  the proper civil register.”

The  contention  is  without  merit.   Section  2  necessarily refers to  a name whose  use is  not already authorised by section 1  for, otherwise, the two  sections would conflict with  each other in  that one  forbids what the other  allows.  A statute should be so construed as  to  prevent a conflict between different parts  of it  (Black  on Interpretation of Laws, 2nd ed., pp. 345-347).  Moreover, as Commonwealth Act No.  142  is a  penal statute, it  should  be  construed strictly against the State and in favor of the accused  (Ibid., p. 451).

In view of the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the appellant acquitted with  costs de  officio.

Para’s,  C. J.,  Bengzon,  Padilla,  Montemayor,  Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,  Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.