David v.
Agbay and People WON David may be indicted for falsification for representing
GR 199113 | March 18, 2015 | Villarama, J.
DOCTRINE: 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.
FACTS
- In 1974, Renato David migrated to Canada where he
became a Canadian citizen by naturalization. Upon
retirement, he and his wife returned to the Philippines.
- In 2000, they purchased a 600sq.m. lot along the beach in
Oriental Mindoro where they constructed a residential
lot. In 2004, they came to know that a portion where they
built their house is public land
- April 12, 2007, David filed a Miscellaneous Lease
Application (MLA) over the subject land with the DENR at
the Community Environment and Natural Resources
Office (CENRO). In said application, he indicated that he
was a Filipino citizen
- Edna Agbay opposed the application because petitioner,
a Canadian citizen, was disqualified to own land. She also
filed a criminal complaint for Falsification of Public
Documents under RPC Art 172
- October 11, 2007: David reacquired his Philippine
citizenship
- Office of the Provincial Prosecutor found probable cause
to indict David for violation of RPC Art 172. David
challenged resolution in petition for review filed before
DOJ
- In the meantime, CENRO rejected David’s MLA, ruling
that his subsequent reacquisition of Filipino citizenship
did not cure the defect and that his MLA was void ab initio
- DOJ denied the petition for review and an information
was subsequently filed with the MTC and a warrant of
arrest was issued against petitioner
- David filed an Urgent Motion for Re-Determination of
Probable Cause in MTC
- Since the crime for which petitioner was charged was
alleged to have been committed before David has
reacquired his Philippine citizenship, the MTC concluded
that he was at that time still a Canadian citizen and
dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction over the
person. David filed motion for reconsideration, but such
was denied.
- RTC denied David’s petition for certiorari, finding no grave
abuse of discretion.
- Hence, this petition for review under Rule 45.
ISSUES
himself as a Filipino despite subsequently reacquiring
Philippine citizenship – YES.
 The act of Falsification was already indicted and
subsequent reacquisition of citizenship does not work to
cure the deed. There are 2 classifications under RA 9225:
(1) Those who were naturalized in a foreign country
before the enactment of RA 9225; and (2) Those who
acquired foreign citizenship after the enactment of RA
9225. Those in (1) reacquire their Philippine citizenship
under RA 9225, while those in (2) retain their Philippine
citizenship. David belongs in group (1).
 Thus, at the time that he misrepresented himself as a
Filipino, he was still of foreign citizenship and RA 9225
does not work to retroactively grant him Philippine
citizenship and undo his deed. The falsification had
already been consummated long before he reacquired
Philippine citizenship.
 Also, petitioner’s argument that penal laws should be
construed in favor of accused was misplaced as RA 9225
was not a penal law
WON MTC properly denied petitioner’s motion for re-
determination of probable cause on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over person of accused. – NO.
 Custody of law is not required for adjudication of reliefs
other than 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 David sought affirmative relief in filing his
motion for redetermination of probable cause, the MTC
clearly erred in stating that it lacked jurisdiction over his
person.
RULING: Petition is DENIED. RTC Order AFFIRMED.