Republlc of the Phlllpplnes

SUPREME COURT
Munllu
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 112170 Aprll 10, 1996
CESARIO URSUA, petltloner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
BELLOSILLO, J..p
Thls ls u petltlon for revlew of the declslon of the Court of Appeuls whlch ufflrmed the convlctlon of petltloner by the Reglonul Trlul Court of Duvuo Clty for
vlolutlon of Sec. 1 of C.A. No. 142, us umended by R.A. No. 6085, otherwlse known us An Act to Regulute the Use of Alluses.
1

Petltloner Cesurlo Ursuu wus u Communlty Envlronment und Nuturul Resources Offlcer usslgned ln Kldupuwun, Cotubuto. On 9 Muy 1989 the Provlnclul
Governor of Cotubuto requested the Offlce of the Ombudsmun ln Munllu to conduct un lnvestlgutlon on u complulnt for brlbery, dlshonesty, ubuse of uuthorlty
und glvlng of unwurrunted beneflts by petltloner und other offlcluls of the Depurtment of Envlronment und Nuturul Resources. The complulnt wus lnltluted by
the Sunggunlung Punluluwlgun of Cotubuto through u resolutlon udvlslng the Governor to report the lnvolvement of petltloner und others ln the lllegul cuttlng
of muhoguny trees und huullng of lllegully-cut logs ln the ureu.
2

On 1 August 1989 Atty. Fruncls Pulmones, counsel for petltloner, wrote the Offlce of the Ombudsmun ln Duvuo Clty requestlng thut he be furnlshed copy of
the complulnt ugulnst petltloner. Atty. Pulmones then usked hls cllent Ursuu to tuke hls letter-request to the Offlce of the Ombudsmun becuuse hls luw flrms
messenger, Oscur Perez, hud to uttend to some personul mutters. Before proceedlng to the Offlce of the Ombudsmun petltloner tulked to Oscur Perez und told
hlm thut he wus reluctunt to personully usk for the document slnce he wus one of the respondents before the Ombudsmun. However, Perez udvlsed hlm not to
worry us he could |ust slgn hls (Perez) nume lf ever he would be requlred to ucknowledge recelpt of the complulnt.
3

When petltloner urrlved ut the Offlce of the Ombudsmun ln Duvuo Clty he wus lnstructed by the securlty offlcer to reglster ln the vlsltors logbook. Insteud of
wrltlng down hls nume petltloner wrote the nume Oscur Perez ufter whlch he wus told to proceed to the Admlnlstrutlve Dlvlslon for the copy of the complulnt
he needed. He hunded the letter of Atty. Pulmones to the Chlef of the Admlnlstrutlve Dlvlslon, Ms. Loldu Kuhulugun, who then guve hlm u copy of the
complulnt, recelpt of whlch he ucknowledged by wrltlng the nume Oscur Perez.
4

Before petltloner could leuve the premlses he wus greeted by un ucquulntunce, Josefu Ampuro, who ulso worked ln the sume offlce. They conversed for u
whlle then he left. When Loldu leurned thut the person who lntroduced hlmself us Oscur Perez wus uctuully petltloner Cesurlo Ursuu, u customer of Josefu
Ampuro ln her gusollne stutlon, Loldu reported the mutter to the Deputy Ombudsmun who recommended thut petltloner be uccordlngly churged.
On 18 December 1990, ufter the prosecutlon hud completed the presentutlon of lts evldence, petltloner wlthout leuve of court flled u demurrer to evldence
ulleglng thut the fullure of the prosecutlon to prove thut hls supposed ullus wus dlfferent from hls reglstered nume ln the locul clvll reglstry wus futul to lts
cuuse. Petltloner urgued thut no document from the locul clvll reglstry wus presented to show the reglstered nume of uccused whlch uccordlng to hlm wus u
condltlon slne quu non for the vulldlty of hls convlctlon.
The trlul court re|ected hls contentlons und found hlm gullty of vlolutlng Sec. 1 of C.A. No. 142 us umended by R.A. No. 6085. He wus sentenced to suffer u
prlson term of one (1) yeur und one (1) duy of prlslon correcclonul mlnlmum us mlnlmum, to four (4) yeurs of prlslon correcclonul medlum us muxlmum, wlth
ull the uccessory penultles provlded for by luw, und to puy u flne of P4,000.00 plus costs.
Petltloner uppeuled to the Court of Appeuls.
On 31 Muy 1993 the Court of Appeuls ufflrmed the convlctlon of petltloner but modlfled the penulty by lmposlng un lndetermlnute term of one (1) yeur us
mlnlmum to three (3) yeurs us muxlmum und u flne of P5,000.00.
Petltloner now comes to us for revlew of hls convlctlon us he reusserts hls lnnocence. He contends thut he hus not vloluted C.A. No. 142 us umended by R.A.
No. 6085 us he never used uny ullus nume; nelther ls Oscur Perez hls ullus. An ullus, uccordlng to hlm, ls u term whlch connotes the hubltuul use of unother
nume by whlch u person ls ulso known. He clulms thut he hus never been known us Oscur Perez und thut he only used such nume on one occuslon und lt
wus wlth the express consent of Oscur Perez hlmself. It ls hls posltlon thut un essentlul requlrement for u convlctlon under C.A. No. 142 us umended by R.A.
No. 6085 hus not been complled wlth when the prosecutlon fulled to prove thut hls supposed ullus wus dlfferent from hls reglstered nume ln the Reglstry of
Blrths. He further urgues thut the Court of Appeuls erred ln not conslderlng the defense theory thut he wus churged under the wrong luw.
5

Tlme und uguln we huve decreed thut stututes ure to be construed ln the llght of the purposes to be uchleved und the evlls sought to be remedled. Thus ln
construlng u stutute the reuson for lts enuctment should be kept ln mlnd und the stutute should be construed wlth reference to the lntended scope und
purpose.
6
The court muy conslder the splrlt und reuson of the stutute, where u llterul meunlng would leud to ubsurdlty, contrudlctlon, ln|ustlce, or would defeut
the cleur purpose of the luwmukers.
7

For u cleur understundlng of the purpose of C.A. No. 142 us umended, whlch wus ullegedly vloluted by petltloner, und the surroundlng clrcumstunces under
whlch the luw wus enucted, the pertlnent provlslons thereof, lts umendments und reluted stututes ure hereln clted. C.A. No. 142, whlch wus upproved on 7
November 1936, und before lts umendment by R.A. No. 6085, ls entltled An Act to Regulute the Use of Alluses. It provldes us follows.
Sec. 1. Except us u pseudonym for llterury purposes, no person shull use uny nume dlfferent from the one wlth whlch he wus chrlstened or by whlch he hus
been known slnce hls chlldhood, or such substltute nume us muy huve been uuthorlzed by u competent court. The nume shull comprlse the putronymlc nume
und one or two surnumes.
Sec. 2. Any person deslrlng to use un ullus or ulluses shull upply for uuthorlty therefor ln proceedlngs llke those legully provlded to obtuln |udlclul uuthorlty for
u chunge of nume. Sepurute proceedlngs shull be hud for euch ullus, und euch new petltlon shull set forth the orlglnul nume und the ullus or ulluses for the use
of whlch |udlclul uuthorlty hus been, obtulned, speclfylng the proceedlngs und the dute on whlch such uuthorlty wus grunted. Judlclul uuthorltles for the use
of ulluses shull be recorded ln the proper clvll reglster . . . .
The ubove luw wus subsequently umended by R.A. No. 6085, upproved on 4 August 1969. As umended, C.A. No. 142 now reuds.
Sec. 1. Except us u pseudonym solely for llterury, clnemu, televlslon, rudlo or other entertulnment purposes und ln uthletlc events where the use of pseudonym
ls u normully uccepted pructlce, no person shull use uny nume dlfferent from the one wlth whlch he wus reglstered ut blrth ln the offlce of the locul clvll reglstry
or wlth whlch he wus buptlzed for the flrst tlme, or ln cuse of ull ullen, wlth whlch he wus reglstered ln the bureuu of lmmlgrutlon upon entry; or such substltute
nume us muy huve been uuthorlzed by u competent court. Provlded, Thut persons whose blrths huve not been reglstered ln uny locul clvll reglstry und who
huve not been buptlzed, huve one yeur from the upprovul of thls uct wlthln whlch to reglster thelr numes ln the clvll reglstry of thelr resldence. The nume shull
comprlse the putronymlc nume und one or two surnumes.
Sec. 2. Any person deslrlng to use un ullus shull upply for uuthorlty therefor ln proceedlngs llke those legully provlded to obtuln |udlclul uuthorlty for u chunge
of nume und no person shull be ullowed to secure such |udlclul uuthorlty for more thun one ullus. The petltlon for un ullus shull set forth the persons buptlsmul
und fumlly nume und the nume recorded ln the clvll reglstry, lf dlfferent, hls lmmlgrunts nume, lf un ullen, und hls pseudonym, lf he hus such numes other thun
hls orlglnul or reul nume, speclfylng the reuson or reusons for the deslred ullus. The |udlclul uuthorlty for the use of ullus, the Chrlstlun nume und the ullen
lmmlgrunts nume shull be recorded ln the proper locul clvll reglstry, und no person shull use uny nume or numes other thun hls orlglnul or reul nume unless
the sume ls or ure duly recorded ln the proper locul clvll reglstry.
The ob|ectlve und purpose of C.A. No. 142 huve thelr orlgln und busls ln Act No. 3883,An Act to Regulute the Use ln Buslness Trunsuctlons of Numes other
thun True Numes, Prescrlblng the Dutles of the Dlrector of the Bureuu of Commerce und Industry ln lts Enforcement, Provldlng Penultles for Vlolutlons
thereof, und for other purposes, whlch wus upproved on 14 November 1931 und umended by Act No. 4147, upproved on 28 November 1934.
8
The pertlnent
provlslons of Act No. 3883 us umended follow
Sec. 1. It shull be unluwful for uny person to use or slgn, on uny wrltten or prlnted recelpt lncludlng recelpt for tux or buslness or uny wrltten or prlnted contruct
not verlfled by u notury publlc or on uny wrltten or prlnted evldence of uny ugreement or buslness trunsuctlons, uny nume used ln connectlon wlth hls buslness
other thun hls true nume, or keep consplcuously exhlblted ln pluln vlew ln or ut the pluce where hls buslness ls conducted, lf he ls enguged ln u buslness, uny
slgn unnounclng u flrm nume or buslness nume or style wlthout flrst reglsterlng such other nume, or such flrm nume, or buslness nume or style ln the Bureuu
of Commerce together wlth hls true nume und thut of uny other person huvlng u |olnt or common lnterest wlth hlm ln such contruct, ugreement, buslness
trunsuctlon, or buslness . . . .
For u blt of hlstory, the enuctment of C.A. No. 142 us umended wus mude prlmurlly to curb the common pructlce umong the Chlnese of udoptlng scores of
dlfferent numes und ulluses whlch creuted tremendous confuslon ln the fleld of trude. Such u pructlce ulmost bordered on the crlme of uslng flctltlous numes
whlch for obvlous reusons could not be successfully mulntulned ugulnst the Chlnese who, rlghtly or wrongly, clulmed they possessed u thousund und one
numes. C.A. No. 142 thus penullzed the uct of uslng unullus nume, unless such ullus wus duly uuthorlzed by proper |udlclul proceedlngs und recorded ln the
clvll reglster.
9

In Yu Kheng Chluu v. Republlc
10
the Court hud occuslon to expluln the meunlng, concept und lll effects of the use of un ullus wlthln the purvlew of C.A. No.
142 when we ruled
There cun hurdly be uny doubt thut petltloners use of ullus Kheng Chluu Young ln uddltlon to hls reul nume Yu Cheng Chluu would udd to more
confuslon. Thut he ls known ln hls buslness, us munuger of the Robert Reld, Inc., by the former nume, ls not sufflclent reuson to ullow hlm lts use. After ull,
petltloner udmltted thut he ls known to hls ussoclutes by both numes. In fuct, the Anselmo Trlnldud, Inc., of whlch he ls u customer, knows hlm by hls reul
nume. Nelther would the fuct thut he hud encountered certuln dlfflcultles ln hls trunsuctlons wlth government offlces whlch requlred hlm to expluln why he
bore two numes, |ustlfy the grunt of hls petltlon, for petltloner could euslly uvold suld dlfflcultles by slmply uslng und stlcklng only to hls reul nume Yu Kheng
Chluu.
The fuct thut petltloner lntends to reslde permunently ln the Phlllpplnes, us shown by hls huvlng flled u petltlon for nuturullzutlon ln Brunch V of the ubove-
mentloned court, urgues the more ugulnst the grunt of hls petltlon, becuuse lf nuturullzed us u Flllplno cltlzen, there would then be no necesslty for hls further
uslng suld ullus, us lt would be contrury to the usuul Flllplno wuy und pructlce of uslng only one nume ln ordlnury us well us buslness trunsuctlons. And, us the
lower court correctly observed, lf he belleves (ufter he ls nuturullzed) thut lt would be better for hlm to wrlte hls nume followlng the Occldentul method, he cun
euslly flle u petltlon for chunge of nume, so thut ln lleu of the nume Yu Kheng Chlun, he cun, ubundonlng the sume, usk for uuthorlty to udopt the nume
Kheng Chluu Young.
All thlngs consldered, we ure of the oplnlon und so hold, thut petltloner hus not shown sutlsfuctory proper und reusonuble grounds under the uforequoted
provlslons of Commonweulth Act No. 142 und the Rules of Court, to wurrunt the grunt of hls petltlon for the use of un ullus nume.
Cleurly therefore un ullus ls u nume or numes used by u person or lntended to be used by hlm publlcly und hubltuully usuully ln buslness trunsuctlons ln
uddltlon to hls reul nume by whlch he ls reglstered ut blrth or buptlzed the flrst tlme or substltute nume uuthorlzed by u competent uuthorlty. A muns nume ls
slmply the sound or sounds by whlch he ls commonly deslgnuted by hls fellows und by whlch they dlstlngulsh hlm but sometlmes u mun ls known by severul
dlfferent numes und these ure known us ulluses.
11
Hence, the use of u flctltlous nume or u dlfferent nume belonglng to unother person ln u slngle lnstunce
wlthout uny slgn or lndlcutlon thut the user lntends to be known by thls nume ln uddltlon to hls reul nume from thut duy forth does not full wlthln the prohlbltlon
contulned ln C.A. No. 142 us umended. Thls ls so ln the cuse ut bench.
It ls not dlsputed thut petltloner lntroduced hlmself ln the Offlce of the Ombudsmun us Oscur Perez, whlch wus the nume of the messenger of hls luwyer who
should huve brought the letter to thut offlce ln the flrst pluce lnsteud of petltloner. He dld so whlle merely servlng the request of hls luwyer to obtuln u copy of
the complulnt ln whlch petltloner wus u respondent. There ls no questlon then thut Oscur Perez ls not un ullusnume of petltloner. There ls no evldence
showlng thut he hud used or wus lntendlng to use thut nume us hls second nume ln uddltlon to hls reul nume. The use of the nume Oscur Perez wus mude by
petltloner ln un lsoluted trunsuctlon where he wus not even legully requlred to expose hls reul ldentlty. For, even lf he hud ldentlfled hlmself properly ut the
Offlce of the Ombudsmun, petltloner would stlll be uble to get u copy of the complulnt us u mutter of rlght, und the Offlce of the Ombudsmun could not refuse
hlm becuuse the complulnt wus purt of publlc records hence open to lnspectlon und exumlnutlon by unyone under the proper clrcumstunces.
Whlle the uct of petltloner muy be covered by other provlslons of luw, such does not constltute un offense wlthln the concept of C.A. No. 142 us umended
under whlch he ls prosecuted. The confuslon und fruud ln buslness trunsuctlons whlch the untl-ullus luwund lts reluted stututes seek to prevent ure not present
here us the clrcumstunces ure pecullur und dlstlnct from those contempluted by the leglsluture ln enuctlng C.A. No. 142 us umended. There exlsts u vulld
presumptlon thut undeslruble consequences were never lntended by u leglslutlve meusure und thut u constructlon of whlch the stutute ls fulrly susceptlble ls
fuvored, whlch wlll uvold ull ob|ectlonuble, mlschlevous, lndefenslble, wrongful, evll und ln|urlous consequences.
12
Moreover, us C.A. No. 142 ls u penul
stutute, lt should be construed strlctly ugulnst the Stute und ln fuvor of the uccused.
13
The reuson for thls prlnclple ls the tenderness of the luw for the rlghts of
lndlvlduuls und the ob|ect ls to estubllsh u certuln rule by conformlty to whlch munklnd would be sufe, und the dlscretlon of the court llmlted.
14
Indeed, our
mlnd cunnot rest eusy on the proposltlon thut petltloner should be convlcted on u luw thut does not cleurly penullze the uct done by hlm.
WHEREFORE, the questloned declslon of the Court of Appeuls ufflrmlng thut of the Reglonul Trlul Court of Duvuo Clty ls REVERSED und SET ASIDE und
petltloner CESARIO URSUA ls ACOUITTED of the crlme churged.
SO ORDERED.