Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CESARIO Vs CA
CESARIO Vs CA
Facts:
On August 1 1989, Atty. Francis Palmones, counsel for petitioner, wrote to the
Office of the Ombudsman to furnished him a copy of the complaint and asked
petitioner to bring that letter to the Office of the Ombudsman since his
messenger had to attend to some personal matters which the latter complied.
Before proceeding to the office of the Ombudsman, he talked to Oscar Perez
and the latter advised him that he could sign his name if ever he would be
required to acknowledge receipt of the complaint. When he arrived at the Office
of the Ombudsman in Davao City, he was asked to sign his name on a
log book and instead of writing his own name, he wrote “Oscar Perez”,
afterwhich he proceeded to the Administrative Division and hand in the letter
to Loida Kahulugan, Chief of the Administrative Division in order to get a
furnished copy of the complaint. Before petitioner left, he was greeted by
an acquaintance and from there Loida learned that the one who introduced his
name as Oscar Perez is actually the petitioner himself so the latter reported the
matter immediately to the Deputy Ombudsman who ordered that petitioner be
accordingly charged.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner has violated Sec.1 of Commonwealth Act No.142
as amended by R.A.6085 or otherwise known as An Act to Regulate the Use of
Aliases.
Ruling:
No, the petitioner did not violateSec.1 of C.A No.142 as amended by R.A. 6085.
The court ruled that there is no evidence showing that he had used or was
intending to used that name in addition to his real name. That name was used
in an isolated transaction where he was not even legally required to expose his
real identity. While the act may be covered by other provisions of law, it does
not constitute an offense within the concept of C.A. No.142
The decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner
CESARIO URSUA is acquitted of the crime charged.