RENATO M. DAVID, PETITIONER, VS. EDITHA A. AGBAY AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

David versus Agbay

The Case

This is the case of David versus Agbay, a petition for review brought by Renato M. David against Editha A. Agbay and the People of the Philippines. David, a natural-born Filipino who had become a Canadian citizen by naturalization, was charged with falsification of a public document for declaring himself a Filipino citizen in a public land application he filed with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The case matters because it fixes the meaning of re-acquisition and retention of Philippine citizenship under the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003, and because it separates two ideas that students often blur: custody of the law and jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

Procedural History

Agbay filed a criminal complaint for falsification of public documents against David before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. The prosecutor found probable cause and recommended the filing of the corresponding information. David brought the matter to the Department of Justice by petition for review, and the Department of Justice denied his petition. An information for falsification of public document was then filed before the Municipal Trial Court of Socorro, Oriental Mindoro, and a warrant of arrest was issued against David.

Before his arrest, David filed an urgent motion for re-determination of probable cause in the Municipal Trial Court. That court denied the motion, holding that it lacked jurisdiction over his person and that the motion lacked merit. David moved for reconsideration, and the Municipal Trial Court denied it. David then went to the Regional Trial Court of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro by petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion. The Regional Trial Court denied the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion and noting that David could raise his claim of Filipino citizenship as a defense at trial. David then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review under Rule 45.

Facts

In 1974, Renato M. David migrated to Canada, where he became a Canadian citizen by naturalization. Upon retirement, he and his wife returned to the Philippines. Sometime in 2000, they purchased a six hundred square meter lot along the beach in Tambong, Gloria, Oriental Mindoro, and built a residential house on it. In 2004, they learned that the portion where they built their house is public land and part of the salvage zone.

On April 12, 2007, David filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application over the land with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. In that application, he indicated that he is a Filipino citizen. Agbay opposed the application on the ground that David, a Canadian citizen, is disqualified to own land, and she filed a criminal complaint for falsification of public documents against him.

On October 11, 2007, David re-acquired his Filipino citizenship under the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003, as shown by an identification certificate issued by the Philippine Consulate General in Toronto. The Community Environment and Natural Resources Office nonetheless rejected his application, ruling that his subsequent re-acquisition did not cure the defect. The Department of Justice likewise denied his petition for review, and the information for falsification was filed in court.

Issues

• Whether or not David 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 Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003.
• Whether or not the Municipal Trial Court properly denied David's motion for re-determination of probable cause on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over his person.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2 of the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003 provides:

Section 2. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared the policy of the State that all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act.

This is the general policy David invoked, but the Court read it as qualified by the phrase "under the conditions of this Act."

Section 3 of the same law provides:

Section 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of allegiance to the Republic: "I ______________________, solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines; and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion." Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath.

This provision supplies the conditions, and it distinguishes those who lost citizenship before the law took effect, who re-acquire, from those who become foreign citizens after, who retain.

Paragraph 1 of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Article 171, provides:

Article 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than Five thousand 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 commercial document.

This is the crime charged, and the Court applied its elements to David's declaration in a public document.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that David may be indicted. The law, it said, intentionally uses two different terms: "re-acquire" for natural-born Filipinos who lost their citizenship before the law took effect, and "retain" for those who become foreign citizens after. David was naturalized as a Canadian citizen before the law took effect, so he belongs to the first category and re-acquired his citizenship only upon taking the oath of allegiance. The Court rejected the argument that the policy in Section 2 wipes out the loss, because that policy must be read together with Section 3, whose second paragraph governs all cases after the law's effectivity. The Court also refused to apply the rule that penal statutes are construed liberally in favor of the accused, because the citizenship law is not a penal law. The elements of falsification under paragraph 1 of Article 172 are that the offender is a private individual or a public officer who did not take advantage of his official position, that he committed an act of falsification under Article 171, and that the falsification was committed in a public, official, or commercial document. David made an untruthful statement in a public document when he declared himself a Filipino while still a Canadian citizen. The Court held that the falsification was already a consummated act, the new law having no retroactive effect insofar as his dual citizenship status is concerned.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Municipal Trial Court erred in saying it lacked jurisdiction over David's person. Custody of the law is not required for the adjudication of reliefs other than an application for bail. One who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court, and by filing his motion for re-determination of probable cause, David sought affirmative relief. The Court nevertheless ruled that the error in the ground did not change the result, because the motion was correctly denied for lack of merit, and the Regional Trial Court committed no grave abuse of discretion.

Doctrine

First, the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003 distinguishes between re-acquisition and retention. A natural-born Filipino who lost Philippine citizenship by naturalization in a foreign country before the law took effect re-acquires citizenship only upon taking the oath of allegiance, and the re-acquisition does not retroact to erase the loss for purposes of a crime already consummated. A natural-born Filipino who becomes a foreign citizen after the law took effect retains citizenship upon taking the same oath. The policy in Section 2 is qualified by the phrase "under the conditions of this Act."

Second, falsification of a public document under paragraph 1 of Article 172 in relation to Article 171 is consummated by the untruthful statement in a public document; proof of gain or intent to injure a third person is not required.

Third, custody of the law and jurisdiction over the person are distinct. Custody of the law is required before the court can act on an application for bail, but not for other reliefs. An accused who files any pleading seeking an affirmative relief is deemed to have waived the defense of lack of jurisdiction over his person, except when he invokes the special jurisdiction of the court by impugning such jurisdiction over his person.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the order of the Regional Trial Court, with costs against David.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that re-acquisition under the citizenship law is not retroactive for purposes of a falsification already consummated, and that seeking an affirmative relief submits the accused to the court's jurisdiction over his person. Examiners use this case to test the re-acquisition and retention distinction, the elements of falsification of public documents, and the difference between custody of the law and jurisdiction over the person.