David vs. Agbay and People of the Philippines

R.A. 9225 does not operate retroactively to deem a natural-born Filipino who re-acquired citizenship under its provisions as never having lost such citizenship at the time he falsely represented himself as a Filipino in a public document prior to re-acquisition, because the law explicitly distinguishes between "re-acquisition" (for those naturalized abroad before its effectivity) and "retention" (for those naturalized after), and the legal fiction in Section 2 is qualified by the conditions in Section 3 governing prospective application.

Petitioner Renato M. David was naturalized as a Canadian citizen in 1974 after migrating from the Philippines. Upon retirement, he and his wife returned to the Philippines and purchased property in Oriental Mindoro, where they constructed a residence. In 2004, they discovered that the portion of the property they occupied was actually public land within the salvage zone. To regularize his occupancy, petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application (MLA) with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) on April 12, 2007, declaring therein that he was a Filipino citizen, despite his continued status as a Canadian national. This declaration became the basis for a criminal charge of falsification of public document filed by the property's previous owners, who opposed his application.

• The Acquisition of Foreign Citizenship: Petitioner migrated to Canada in 1974 and acquired Canadian citizenship by naturalization. He and his wife returned to the Philippines upon retirement.
• The Property Purchase and Discovery: In 2000, they purchased a 600-square meter lot in Tambong, Gloria, Oriental Mindoro, where they constructed a residential house. In 2004, they discovered that the portion where they built their house was public land part of the salvage zone.
• The Miscellaneous Lease Application: On April 12, 2007, petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application (MLA) over the subject land with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) in Socorro. In the application, he indicated that he was a Filipino citizen.
• Opposition and Criminal Complaint: Private respondent Editha A. Agbay opposed the MLA on the ground that petitioner, being a Canadian citizen, was disqualified to own land. She also filed a criminal complaint for falsification of public documents under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code against petitioner.
• Re-acquisition of Philippine Citizenship: On October 11, 2007, petitioner re-acquired his Filipino citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225, as evidenced by Identification Certificate No. 266-10-07 issued by the Consulate General of the Philippines in Toronto.
• Defense of Petitioner: Petitioner averred that at the time he filed his application, he had intended to re-acquire Philippine citizenship and had been assured by a CENRO officer that he could declare himself as a Filipino. He further alleged that he bought the property from the Agbays who misrepresented to him that the subject property was titled land.
• CENRO and DOJ Resolutions: On June 3, 2008, the CENRO issued an order rejecting petitioner's MLA, ruling that his subsequent re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship did not cure the defect in his MLA which was void ab initio. On July 26, 2010, the DOJ denied petitioner's petition for review, holding that the presence of the elements of the crime of falsification of public document suffices to warrant indictment notwithstanding the absence of any proof that he gained or intended to injure a third person.
• The Motion for Re-Determination: On February 11, 2011, after the filing of the Information and before his arrest, petitioner filed an Urgent Motion for Re-Determination of Probable Cause in the MTC. The MTC denied the motion on March 22, 2011, holding that R.A. 9225 makes a distinction between those who became foreign citizens during its effectivity and those who lost Philippine citizenship before its enactment when the governing law was Commonwealth Act No. 63. Since the crime was alleged to have been committed on April 12, 2007, before he had re-acquired his Philippine citizenship, the MTC concluded that petitioner was at that time still a Canadian citizen. The MTC also held that it lacked jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

• Retroactivity of R.A. 9225: Petitioner maintained that as a natural-born Filipino citizen who re-acquired his citizenship under R.A. No. 9225, he was by legal fiction "deemed not to have lost" his Philippine citizenship at the time of his naturalization in Canada and through the time when he was said to have falsely claimed Philippine citizenship. He insisted that the lower court disregarded this undisputed fact by supporting the prosecution for falsification.
• Due Process and Jurisdiction: Petitioner argued that compelling him to first return from his legal residence in Canada and to surrender or allow himself to be arrested under a warrant for his alleged false claim to Philippine citizenship pre-empted his right through his wife and counsel to question the validity of the warrant before its implementation, which is tantamount to a denial of due process.
• Favorable Interpretation: Petitioner asserted that in criminal cases, the interpretation of the law which favors the accused is preferred because it is consistent with the constitutional presumption of innocence. He cited a letter-reply dated January 31, 2011 from the Bureau of Immigration stating that his status as a natural-born Filipino will be governed by Section 2 of R.A. 9225.
• Academic Question of Citizenship: In his motion for reconsideration before the MTC, petitioner argued that since his application had yet to receive final evaluation and action by the DENR Region IV-B office in Manila, it is academic to ask the citizenship of the applicant who had re-acquired Philippine citizenship six months after he applied for lease of public land.

• Non-Retroactivity of R.A. 9225: The Solicitor General contended that petitioner’s argument regarding the retroactivity of R.A. 9225 is without merit. The rulings in Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections and Altarejos v. Commission on Elections on the retroactivity of one’s re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship to the date of filing his application therefor cannot be applied to the case of herein petitioner because he had not alleged, much less proved, that he had already applied for reacquisition of Philippine citizenship before he made the declaration in the Public Land Application that he is a Filipino.
• Elements of Falsification: Respondent stressed that in falsification of public document, it is not necessary that the idea of gain or intent to injure a third person be present. As to petitioner’s defense of good faith, such remains to be a defense which may be properly raised and proved in a full-blown trial.
• Waiver of Jurisdiction: On the issue of jurisdiction over the person of the accused, the Solicitor General opined that in seeking an affirmative relief from the MTC when he filed his Urgent Motion for Re-determination of Probable Cause, petitioner is deemed to have submitted his person to the said court’s jurisdiction by his voluntary appearance. Nonetheless, the RTC correctly ruled that the lower court committed no grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion after a judicious, thorough and personal evaluation of the parties’ arguments.

• Retroactive Application of R.A. 9225: 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.
• Jurisdiction over the Person: 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.

• Retroactive Application of R.A. 9225: The petition lacks merit. R.A. 9225 distinguishes between natural-born Filipinos who became foreign citizens before its effectivity (who re-acquire citizenship) and those who became foreign citizens after its effectivity (who retain citizenship). Petitioner, having been naturalized as a Canadian citizen in 1974 (prior to R.A. 9225's effectivity on August 29, 2003), falls under the first category. Section 2's declaration that Filipinos who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship is qualified by the phrase "under the conditions of this Act" and must be read with Section 3, which clarifies that the policy governs all cases after the new law’s effectivity for the retention category. The falsification was consummated on April 12, 2007 when petitioner declared himself a Filipino while still a Canadian citizen, and R.A. 9225 has no retroactive effect insofar as his dual citizenship status is concerned. The MTC therefore did not err in finding probable cause for falsification of public document under Article 172, paragraph 1 of the RPC.
• Jurisdiction over the Person: The MTC erred in stating that it lacked jurisdiction over the person of the accused. Custody of the law is not required for the adjudication of reliefs other than an application for bail. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is deemed waived when he files any pleading seeking an affirmative relief, except in cases when he invokes the special jurisdiction of the court by impugning such jurisdiction over his person. Considering that petitioner sought affirmative relief in filing his motion for re-determination of probable cause, the MTC clearly erred in stating that it lacked jurisdiction over his person. Notwithstanding such erroneous ground stated in the MTC's order, the RTC correctly ruled that no grave abuse of discretion was committed by the MTC in denying the said motion for lack of merit.

• Distinction between Re-acquisition and Retention under R.A. 9225 — R.A. 9225 explicitly distinguishes between two categories of natural-born Filipinos: (1) those who lost Philippine citizenship by naturalization in a foreign country prior to the law's effectivity, who shall re-acquire Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance; and (2) those who become citizens of a foreign country after the law's effectivity, who shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath. The terminology is intentional and reflects the legislative intent to treat pre-existing naturalizations differently from future ones.
• Non-Retroactivity of R.A. 9225 — The legal fiction in Section 2 of R.A. 9225 declaring that Filipinos who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship is qualified by the phrase "under the conditions of this Act" and must be read with Section 3. For those naturalized before the law's effectivity, they are treated as having already lost Philippine citizenship under Commonwealth Act No. 63, and the re-acquisition under R.A. 9225 does not retroactively confer dual citizenship status at the time of the commission of acts prior to re-acquisition.
• Custody of the Law vs. Jurisdiction over the Person — Custody of the law (restraint over the body) is distinct from jurisdiction over the person. Custody is required only for bail applications; jurisdiction over the person is acquired upon arrest or voluntary appearance and is deemed waived when the accused files any pleading seeking affirmative relief, except when specifically impugning the court's jurisdiction over his person.
• Elements of Falsification of Public Document under Article 172 — The elements are: (1) the offender is a private individual or public officer/employee who did not take advantage of his official position; (2) he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171; and (3) the falsification was committed in a public, official, or commercial document. Intent to gain or injure is not required for falsification of public documents.

• "Section 2 declaring the policy that considers Filipinos who became foreign citizens as not to have lost their Philippine citizenship, should be read together with Section 3, the second paragraph of which clarifies that such policy governs all cases after the new law’s effectivity." — Explains the interplay between Section 2 (general policy) and Section 3 (specific conditions) of R.A. 9225 regarding retroactivity.
• "Courts adopt an interpretation more favorable to the accused following the time-honored principle that penal statutes are construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused. R.A. 9225, however, is not a penal law." — Clarifies that the rule of strict construction of penal laws does not apply to R.A. 9225, which is a citizenship law, not a penal statute.
• "Custody of the law is required before the court can act upon the application for bail, but is not required for the adjudication of other reliefs sought by the defendant where the mere application therefor constitutes a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused." — Distinguishes between custody and jurisdiction over the person.
• "As a general rule, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court." — Establishes that filing a motion for affirmative relief constitutes voluntary submission to jurisdiction.

• Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections, 327 Phil. 521 (1996) — Cited by petitioner regarding the retroactivity of re-acquisition of citizenship to the date of filing the application; distinguished by the Court because R.A. 9225 itself treats those naturalized before its effectivity as having lost citizenship, and petitioner failed to prove he filed for re-acquisition before the falsification.
• Altarejos v. Commission on Elections, 484 Phil. 609 (2004) — Similar to Frivaldo; distinguished on the same grounds.
• Miranda v. Tuliao, 520 Phil. 907 (2006) — Controlling precedent on the distinction between custody of the law and jurisdiction over the person; followed to hold that jurisdiction is waived by seeking affirmative relief.
• AASJS (Advocates and Adherents of Social Justice for School Teachers and Allied Workers) v. Datumanong, 551 Phil. 110 (2007) — Cited for the proposition that R.A. 9225 amends Commonwealth Act No. 63 by allowing dual citizenship and providing procedures for re-acquiring and retaining Philippine citizenship.

• Section 2 and 3, Republic Act No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003) — Section 2 declares the policy that Filipinos who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of the Act; Section 3 distinguishes between re-acquisition (for those naturalized before the Act) and retention (for those naturalized after).
• Commonwealth Act No. 63 — The law prior to R.A. 9225 governing loss and re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship; under which naturalization in a foreign country resulted in loss of Philippine citizenship.
• Article 172, Paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Penalizes falsification by a private individual of public, official, or commercial documents.
• Article 171, Revised Penal Code — Enumerates the acts of falsification, including making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs the petition for review of judgments of the Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Courts.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court — Governs the petition for certiorari.

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Diosdado M. Peralta, Bienvenido L. Reyes, and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (Designated additional member).