G.R. No. 199113 , March 18, 2015
RENATO M. DAVID, Petitioner, vs. EDITHA A. AGBAY and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Renato M. David, a natural-born Filipino, migrated to Canada in 1974 and became a Canadian citizen by naturalization. Upon retirement, he and his wife returned to the Philippines and purchased a 600-square meter lot in Gloria, Oriental Mindoro, where they built a house. They later discovered the land was public land and part of the salvage zone. On April 12, 2007, petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application (MLA) with the DENR, indicating he was a Filipino citizen. Private respondent Editha A. Agbay opposed the application, arguing petitioner was a Canadian citizen disqualified from owning land, and filed a criminal complaint for falsification of public documents under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. On October 11, 2007, petitioner re-acquired his Filipino citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 . The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor found probable cause to indict petitioner for falsification, a finding upheld by the Department of Justice. An information was filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). Petitioner filed an Urgent Motion for Re-Determination of Probable Cause, which the MTC denied, holding that at the time of filing the MLA, petitioner was still a Canadian citizen, and his subsequent re-acquisition of citizenship did not cure the defect. The MTC also cited lack of jurisdiction over petitioner’s person. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied petitioner’s petition for certiorari, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the MTC.

ISSUE

1. 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 R.A. No. 9225 .
2. 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.

RULING

1. Yes, petitioner may be indicted for falsification. The crime of falsification of a public document under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code was consummated on April 12, 2007, when petitioner, still a Canadian citizen, falsely declared himself a Filipino in his MLA. His subsequent re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship in October 2007 did not retroactively cure the falsity of the representation made at the time of the application. The legal fiction under R.A. No. 9225 that a natural-born Filipino “shall be deemed not to have lost” Philippine citizenship applies only for the purpose of re-acquiring citizenship and does not retroactively validate an act that was illegal when committed. The elements of falsification were present: he made an untruthful statement in a narration of facts in a public document, and he had a legal obligation to disclose the truth of his citizenship status.
2. No, the MTC did not properly deny the motion on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person. By filing an Urgent Motion for Re-Determination of Probable Cause, petitioner voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the MTC. Jurisdiction over the person of an accused is acquired either upon arrest or voluntary appearance. Petitioner’s filing of the motion constituted voluntary appearance, thereby vesting the court with jurisdiction over his person. However, this error does not warrant reversal because the MTC’s denial of the motion was correct on the merits—there was no grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause for falsification. Petitioner’s defenses, such as good faith or lack of intent to gain, are matters to be raised and proven during trial.