URSUA v. CA, G.R. No. 112170, April 10, 1996 (First Division), Bellosillo, J.

Facts:

Petitioner Cesario Ursua was a Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer
of Kidapawan, Cotabato involved in a complaint filed by the Provincial Governor of Cotabato to
the Office of the Ombudsman for alleged bribery, dishonesty, abuse of authority, and giving of
unwarranted benefits by petitioner and other DENR officials. Petitioner employed counsel, Atty.
Francis Palmones who asked him to get a copy of the complaint against the petitioner because
his law firm’s messenger, Oscar Perez had to attend to some personal matters. Petitioner
confided to Perez that he was reluctant to personally ask for the document since he was one of
the respondents before the Ombudsman. Perez advised him not to worry as he could just sign his
name (Perez) if he would be required to acknowledge receipt of complaint. At the Office of the
Ombudsman (Davao), he acknowledged receipt of complaint from the Chief of the
Administrative Division, Ms. Loida Kahulugan, by writing the name Oscar Perez. As he was
about to leave, he was greeted by an acquaintance and his true identity was learned. Kahulugan
reported the matter to the Deputy Ombudsman who recommended petitioner be charged.

Petitioner filed a demurrer alleging (1) he never violated CA 142 as amended by RA

6085 as he never used any alias; neither is Oscar Perez an alias, (2) he has never been known as
Oscar Perez and he only used the name on one occasion with consent from Perez himself (3)
prosecution failed to prove that his supposed alias was different from his registered name in the
Registry of Birth, a requirement for conviction under CA 142 as amended by RA 6085.

RTC Davao rejected his contentions, found him GUILTY of said law and sentenced to a
prison term of 1 YEAR AND ONE DAY minimum to FOUR YEARS maximum and a fine of
Php 4,000.00 plus costs. Petitioner appealed to CA.

CA AFFIRMED conviction but modified penalty of indeterminate imprisonment of ONE

YEAR minimum to THREE YEARS maximum and a fine of Php 5,000.00

Issue/s:

Whether the petitioner’s use of the name Oscar Perez warranted an offense punishable
under CA 142 as amended by RA 6085?

Ruling:

The enactment of CA 142 as amended was made primarily for the purpose of regulating
the use of aliases in business transactions; to curb the common practice among the Chinese
adopting scores of different names and aliases which created tremendous confusion in the field
of trade.
 CA 142 defined alias as a name/s used by a person or intended to be used by him publicly
and habitually usually in business transactions in addition to his real name by which he is
registered at birth or baptized the first time or substitute name authorized by a competent
authority. The use of a fictitious name or a different name belonging to another person in a
single instance without any sign or indication that the user intends to be known by this name in
addition to his real name form that day forth does not all within the prohibition contained in CA
142 as amended.

The confusion and fraud in business transactions which the anti-alias law and its related
statutes seek to prevent are not present here as the circumstances are peculiar and distinct from
those contemplated by the legislature. Undesirable consequences were never intended by a
legislative measure and that a construction of which the statute is fairly susceptible is favoured,
which will avoid all objectionable, mischieveous, indefensible, wrongful, evil and injurious
consequences. Our mind cannot rest easy on the proposition that petitioner should be convicted
on a law that does not clearly penalize the act done by him.

Decision of CA affirming that of RTC is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and petitioner is
ACQUITTED of the crime charged.