View full case

RENATO M. DAVID v. EDITHA A. AGBAY

FACTS:

Renato M. David, a Canadian citizen, and his wife returned to the Philippines after retiring and purchased a 600-square meter lot in Oriental Mindoro. However, they later discovered that the portion where their house was built belonged to the salvage zone and was public land. In 2007, David filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application (MLA) for the land with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), but Editha A. Agbay opposed it and filed a criminal complaint against David for falsification of public documents. During this time, David re-acquired his Filipino citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225.

The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor found probable cause and indicted David for falsification of public documents. The CENRO rejected his MLA, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) denied his petition for review. As a result, an information for falsification of public documents was filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) and a warrant of arrest issued against David.

David filed an urgent motion for re-determination of probable cause before the MTC, which was denied. He then filed a motion for reconsideration, also denied. Dissatisfied, David filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the MTC.

In his petition, David argues that the MTC disregarded his re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225 and violated his right to due process by compelling his return to the Philippines and arrest. The Solicitor General contends that David's argument on the retroactivity of R.A. No. 9225 is without merit and that the defense of good faith can be raised in a full-blown trial.

The issues to be resolved in the case are whether David can be indicted for falsification despite his re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225, and whether the MTC had jurisdiction over his case.

ISSUES:

  1. 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 the provisions of R.A. 9225.

  2. 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 (petitioner).

RULING:

  1. Yes, the petitioner can be indicted for falsification for representing himself as a Filipino in his Public Land Application because his subsequent re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship does not cure the defect of making an untruthful statement at the time he was still a Canadian citizen, rendering the falsification a consummated act.

  2. No, the MTC incorrectly stated it lacked jurisdiction over the petitioner’s person. By seeking affirmative relief in filing his motion for re-determination of probable cause, the petitioner is deemed to have submitted himself to the court's jurisdiction.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Re-acquisition and Retention of Philippine Citizenship under R.A. 9225: The law distinguishes between re-acquisition for those who lost their citizenship before its effect and retention for those who acquired foreign citizenship after its effectivity.

  2. Falsification of Public Documents: The elements include making an untruthful statement in a public document by a private individual or public officer not taking advantage of their position, even without proof of gain or intent to injure.

  3. Jurisdiction over the Person: Filing a motion for an affirmative relief constitutes voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction.

  4. Application in Criminal Cases: Custody of the law is not a requirement for adjudication of reliefs other than an application for bail.