Ursua vs. Court of Appeals G.R. no. 112170 April 10, 1996

5.) C. NAME: Rebecca L. Jordan SECTION: 410 TITLE: CESARIO URSUA, Petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents. FACTS OF THE CASE: Mr. Cesario Ursua petition for a review of the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed his conviction by the Regional Trial Court of Davao City for violating Sec.1 C.A. 142 as amended by R.A. 6085 otherwise known as “An Act to Regulate the Use of Aliases” Ursua was asked by Atty. Palmones to take his letter-request to the office of the Ombudsman because his Law firm messenger Oscar Perez has to attend to some personal matters. Ursua was advised by Oscar Perez that if acknowledgement receipt is required he can use his name to sign the said receipt. Upon entry to the Office of the Ombudsman at Davao city, he wrote Oscar Perez at the visitor’s logbook, then went to the Administrative Division where he gave the letter-request of Atty. Palmones to Chief of the Administrative Division, Ms. Loida who gave him the copy of the complaint, receipt of which he acknowledge by writing the name Oscar Perez. Before leaving the premises, Ursua was greeted by an acquaintance, Josefa Amparo, who also worked for the same office. When Ursua left, Ms. Loida found out the the person who introduce himself as Oscar Perez was not himself but was Cesario Ursua. She then reported the matter to the Deputy Ombudsman. The trial court found him guilty of violating Sec.1 C.A.142 as amened by R.A. 6085. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. He now files a petition to review his conviction as he reasserts his innocence. That he did not violated the Sec.1 CA 142 as amended as R.A. 6085. That he has never use nay alias name; neither Oscar Perez is his alias. According to him an “Alias” is a term that uses another name habitually by which the 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. ISSUE: Whether Cesario Urusa should not be really charge of the Sec.1 CA 142 as amended by R.A. 6085 otherwise known as “ An Act of Regulating the Use of Aliases”

RULING OF THE COURT: Clearly therefore an alias is a name or names 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. There is no question then that “Oscar Perez” is not an alias name of petitioner. There is no evidence showing that he had used or was intending to use that name as his second name in addition to his real name. The use of the name “Oscar Perez” was made by petitioner in an isolated transaction where he was not even legally required to expose his real identity. For, even if he had identified himself properly at the Office of the Ombudsman, petitioner would still be able to get a copy of the complaint as a matter of right The act of petitioner may be covered by other provisions of law; such does not constitute an offense within the concept of C.A. No. 142 as amended under which he is prosecuted. WHEREFORE, the questioned decision of the Court of Appeals affirming that of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and petitioner CESARIO URSUA is ACQUITTED of the crime charged. SO ORDERED.