Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 73 views

    David V Agbay

    Uploaded by

    BGod
    The Supreme Court ruled that (1) the petitioner could be indicted because RA 9225 distinguishes between those who became citizens of another country before and after the law took effect, with petitioner falling in the first group, and (2) the MTC had jurisdiction over the petitioner because, under the doctrines of Miranda and Pico, by filing a motion for redetermination of probable cause the petitioner submitted to the MTC's jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    David V Agbay

    Uploaded by

    BGod
    73 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that (1) the petitioner could be indicted because RA 9225 distinguishes between those who became citizens of another country before and after the law took effect, with petitioner falling in the first group, and (2) the MTC had jurisdiction over the petitioner because, under the doctrines of Miranda and Pico, by filing a motion for redetermination of probable cause the petitioner submitted to the MTC's jurisdiction.

    Original Title

    david v agbay

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that (1) the petitioner could be indicted because RA 9225 distinguishes between those who became citizens of another country before and after the law took effect, with petitioner falling in the first group, and (2) the MTC had jurisdiction over the petitioner because, under the doctrines of Miranda and Pico, by filing a motion for redetermination of probable cause the petitioner submitted to the MTC's jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    73 views1 page

    David V Agbay

    Uploaded by

    BGod
    The Supreme Court ruled that (1) the petitioner could be indicted because RA 9225 distinguishes between those who became citizens of another country before and after the law took effect, with petitioner falling in the first group, and (2) the MTC had jurisdiction over the petitioner because, under the doctrines of Miranda and Pico, by filing a motion for redetermination of probable cause the petitioner submitted to the MTC's jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    David v.

    Agbay (2015): Petitioner migrated to Canada in 1974 and The Court ruled that petitioner can be indicted because R.A. 9225
    became a naturalized citizen of the same. Upon retirement, he came made a distinction between Filipino citizens who became citizens of
    back to the PH and purchased a beach in Mindoro in April 2007. He another country BEFORE and AFTER the law takes effect. The first
    then filed for an MLA with the DENR for his beach and declared group is allowed to reacquire the citizenship provided that they take
    therein that he is a Filipino citizen. This was opposed by Respondent the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines while the
    who claimed that a Canadian cannot own land in the PH and that the second group is allowed to retain their citizenship upon taking the
    Petitioner should be charged under Article 172 of the RPC. same oath. Petitioner became a naturalized citizen of Canada in
    Accordingly, petitioner reacquired his Filipino citizenship in October 1974 and R.A. 9225 took effect in 2003, making him a part of the first
    2007 and claimed that he was assured by a CENRO official that he group. This means that petitioner was not yet a Filipino citizen at the
    could say that he is one during his MLA application. He also claimed time of his MLA application because he only reacquired his
    that it was the Agbays who had done a misrepresentation. Later, the citizenship in October 2007.
    Provincial Prosecutor found probable cause against him and filed an
    information in the MTC. Petitioner then moved for Re-Determination
    of Probable Cause but it got denied since the MTC did not have On the other hand, the Court ruled that the MTC has jurisdiction
    jurisdiction over him since the crime charged against him was alleged over petitioner’s case in accordance with the doctrine of
    to have been committed in April 2007 before he re-acquired his Miranda and Pico where “as a general rule, one who seeks an
    Filipino citizenship. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction
    denied, motivating him to raise the matter at the RTC. He argued that of the court.” Considering that petitioner filed his motion to re-
    he cannot be indicted since R.A. 9225 allowed him to retain his determination of probable cause with the MTC, the latter clearly
    Filipino citizenship even if he became a naturalized citizen of Canada, erred in stating that it lacked jurisdiction over his person.
    making him not liable for falsification. He also asserted that Notwithstanding such erroneous ground stated in the MTC's
    jurisdiction over the accused cannot be a pre-condition for the re- order, the RTC correctly ruled that no grave abuse of discretion
    determination of probable cause by the court that issues a warrant of was committed by the MTC in denying the said motion for lack
    arrest. The RTC disagreed, leading to the case at bar. of merit.

    You might also like