People v. David
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Renato M. David, a naturalized Canadian citizen, and his wife purchased a beachfront lot in Oriental Mindoro in 2000, constructing their residence thereon. In 2004, they discovered that the portion occupied by their house was public land and part of the salvage zone. In April 2007, David filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application (MLA) with the DENR, declaring himself a Filipino citizen. Private respondent Editha A. Agbay opposed this application, asserting David's disqualification as a Canadian citizen, and subsequently filed a criminal complaint for falsification of public documents against him. Procedural History: David re-acquired his Filipino citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 in October 2007, after filing the MLA. He claimed a CENRO officer advised him to declare himself Filipino and that he was misled by the Agbays regarding the land's status. The Provincial Prosecutor found probable cause for falsification in January 2008, a resolution upheld by the Department of Justice in July 2010, leading to the filing of an Information for Falsification of Public Document. David's MLA was rejected by CENRO in June 2008. He filed an Urgent Motion for Re-Determination of Probable Cause with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), which was denied on February 11, 2011, citing lack of jurisdiction and merit. His motion for reconsideration was also denied. Subsequently, he filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the MTC. The RTC denied the petition on October 8, 2011, stating that David could raise his citizenship as a defense during trial. The Petition: Petitioner David seeks review under Rule 45, arguing that the lower courts erred by disregarding his re-acquired Filipino citizenship under R.A. 9225, which he contends should be deemed retroactive, meaning he was never divested of his Filipino citizenship. He also argues that compelling him to face arrest before his citizenship status is fully resolved violates due process. The petition questions whether he can be indicted for falsification given his subsequent re-acquisition of citizenship and whether the MTC properly denied his motion for re-determination of probable cause on grounds of lack of jurisdiction over his person.
Issue(s)
Whether 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 R.A. 9225. Whether the MTC properly denied petitioner's motion for re-determination of probable cause on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Order dated October 8, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro is affirmed and upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of indictment for falsification despite re-acquisition of citizenship: The Court held that petitioner, a naturalized Canadian citizen prior to the effectivity of R.A. 9225, belongs to the category of natural-born Filipinos who lost their citizenship under Commonwealth Act No. 63. While R.A. 9225 allows for the re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance, this re-acquisition does not have retroactive effect to cure a falsification committed prior to the oath. The MLA was filed on April 12, 2007, when petitioner was still a Canadian citizen. The falsification, therefore, was a consummated act at that time. The Court clarified that R.A. 9225 distinguishes between "re-acquisition" (for those who lost citizenship before its effectivity) and "retention" (for those who lost citizenship after its effectivity), and the former does not retroactively validate prior acts. The Court also noted that R.A. 9225 is not a penal law, thus the principle of interpreting penal statutes in favor of the accused does not apply. On the issue of the MTC's denial of the motion for re-determination of probable cause based on lack of jurisdiction: The Court found that the MTC erred in stating it lacked jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. By filing an "Urgent Motion for Re-Determination of Probable Cause," petitioner sought an affirmative relief from the MTC. Such an action constitutes a voluntary appearance and is deemed a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person, even if filed before arrest. The Court distinguished this from the requirement of "custody of the law" which is necessary only for applications for bail. Therefore, while the MTC's ground for denial was erroneous, its ultimate decision to deny the motion was correct because the motion lacked merit, as the elements of falsification were sufficiently established for indictment.
Main Doctrine
The re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225 by a natural-born Filipino citizen who lost said citizenship prior to the effectivity of the Act does not retroactively cure the falsification of a public document committed while he was still a foreign citizen. Furthermore, seeking an affirmative relief from a court, even before arrest, constitutes voluntary appearance and submits the accused to the court's jurisdiction.