CESARIO URSUA, Petitioner, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Respondents

I. SYLLABUS
The statute should be construed with reference to the intended
scope and purpose.

II. FACTS OF THE CASE:

In 1989, Cesario Ursua was charged with bribery and dishonesty. His
lawyer then asked him to take his letter-request to the Office of the
Ombudsman because his law firm’s messenger, Oscar Perez had to attend
some personal matters. However Perez told Ursua he could just sign his
name if ever he would be required to acknowledge receipt of the
complaint.

At the office of the Ombudsman, Ursua signed the visitors’ logbook

as and the receipt of the copy of the complaint as “Oscar Perez”. However,
a staff of the Ombudsman was able to learn that he was in fact Cesario
Ursua. The staff reported the matter to the Deputy Ombudsman who
recommended that petitioner be accordingly charged.

The trial court found him guilty of Violating Sec.1 C.A 142 as amended
by R.A. 6085 otherwise known as “An Act to Regulate the Use of Aliases”

Cesario Ursua now files a petition to review his conviction as he

reasserts his innocence. He contends that he has not violated C.A. No. 142
as amended by R.A. No. 6085 as he never used any alias name; neither is
"Oscar Perez" his alias. An alias, according to him, is a term which connotes
the habitual use of another name by which a person is also known. He
claims that he has never been known as "Oscar Perez" and that he only
used such name on one occasion and it was with the express consent of
Oscar Perez himself. He further argues that the Court of Appeals erred in
not considering the defense theory that he was charged under the wrong
law.

III. Issue:

Whether or not Cesario Ursua should not be really charged of

violating Sec. 1 C.A. 142 as amended by R.A. 6085.

IV. RULING:

No. While the act of the petitioner may be covered by other

provisions of law, such does not constitute an offense within the concept
of CA. No. 142 as amended under which he is prosecuted.