Consti II case digest: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SECRETARY RAUL M. GONZALEZ Vs. MICHAEL ALFIO PENNISI,

Facts:

Michael Alfio Pennisi (respondent) was born on 13 March 1975 in Queensland, Australia to Alfio Pennisi, an Australian national, and Anita T. Quintos (Quintos), allegedly a Filipino citizen.  In March 1999, respondent filed a petition for recognition as Filipino citizen before the Bureau of Immigration (BI).

After submitting all the requirements necessary to prove that he is a Filipino the BI and DOJ granted his petition to be a Filipino citizen.

On 7 August 2003, the Senate Committees on Games, Amusement and Sports and on Constitutional Amendments (Senate Committees) jointly submitted Committee Report No. 256^[5](Committee Report) recommending, among other things, that (1) the BI conduct summary deportation proceedings against several Filipino-foreign PBA players, including respondent; and (2) the DOJ Secretary conduct an immediate review of all orders of recognition. Respondent was included in the said list.

On the said list the inclusion of his name is anchored on the ground that the authenticity of the document presented by him are suspicious.

His alleged mother and other relatives, specifically the parents of the former, namely: Felipe M. Quintos and Celina G.  Tomeda, who were mentioned in his application for recognition of Philippine citizenship in the BI, are not known and have never existed in Panabingan, San Antonio, Nueva Ecija.

On 18 October 2004, the DOJ issued a resolution revoking respondent’s certificate of recognition and directing the BI to begin summary deportation proceedings against respondent and other Filipino-foreign PBA players.

An appeal was filed before the CA. After hearing CA affirmed the first decision of the BI and DOJ retaining the petitioners status as a Filipino.

Hence this petition.

Issue:

W/N Pennisi is a Filipino citizen.

Ruling:

WE AGREE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT WHILE THE AFFIDAVITS OF SOLIMAN AND PERALTA MIGHT HAVE CAST DOUBT ON THE VALIDITY OF QUINTOS’ CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH, SUCH CERTIFICATE REMAINS VALID UNLESS DECLARED INVALID BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY.  THE RULE STANDS THAT “(D)OCUMENTS CONSISTING OF ENTRIES IN PUBLIC RECORDS MADE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF A DUTY BY A PUBLIC OFFICER ARE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE FACTS STATED THEREIN. X X X.”^[22] 

         WE FURTHER SUSTAIN THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THERE COULD BE REASONS WHY THE QUINTOSES AND TOMEDAS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE CENSUS, SUCH AS THEY COULD HAVE BEEN MERE TRANSIENTS IN THE PLACE.  AS FOR THEIR ABSENCE IN THE MASTER’S LIST OF VOTERS, THEY COULD HAVE FAILED TO REGISTER THEMSELVES AS VOTERS.  THE LATE REGISTRATION OF QUINTOS’ CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH WAS MADE 10 YEARS AFTER HER BIRTH AND NOT ANYTIME NEAR THE FILING OF RESPONDENT’S PETITION FOR RECOGNITION AS FILIPINO CITIZEN.  AS SUCH, IT COULD NOT BE PRESUMED THAT THE CERTIFICATE’S LATE FILING WAS MEANT TO USE IT FRAUDULENTLY.  FINALLY, THE AUSTRALIAN DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS ITSELF ATTESTED THAT AS OF 14 JULY 1999, QUINTOS HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP.  RESPONDENT SUBMITTED A CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF QUINTOS’ AUSTRALIAN CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF ALIEN, INDICATING HER NATIONALITY AS FILIPINO.  THESE PIECES OF EVIDENCE SHOULD PREVAIL OVER THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY SOLIMAN AND PERALTA TO THE SENATE COMMITTEES. 

         WHEREFORE, WE DENY THE PETITION.  WE AFFIRM THE              30 SEPTEMBER 2005 DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN CA-G.R. SP        NO. 87271.

         SO ORDERED.