The Anti-Alias Law: When Is Using Another Person’s Name a Crime?

The Anti-Alias Law (Commonwealth Act No. 142, as amended by Republic Act No. 6085) regulates the use of names different from the one registered at birth. Many assume that using another person’s name, even once, is a crime. But the Supreme Court’s 1996 ruling in Ursua v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 112170) clarifies that a single, isolated use of a different name—without intent to be known by it—does not violate this law.

The Facts of the Case

Cesario Ursua, a Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer, was a respondent in a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman. His lawyer asked him to deliver a letter requesting a copy of the complaint to the Ombudsman’s office in Davao City. The lawyer’s regular messenger, Oscar Perez, was unavailable.

Ursua hesitated because he was the subject of the complaint. Perez assured him he could simply sign Perez’s name if required to acknowledge receipt. At the Ombudsman’s office, Ursua registered in the visitors’ logbook as “Oscar Perez” and later acknowledged receipt of the complaint using the same name. An acquaintance recognized him, and the matter was reported. Ursua was charged with violating Section 1 of C.A. No. 142, as amended.

The Issue

The central question was whether Ursua’s use of another person’s name on a single occasion constituted a violation of the Anti-Alias Law. Ursua argued that “Oscar Perez” was not his alias, that he had never been known by that name, and that he used it only once with Perez’s consent.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court acquitted Ursua, reversing the convictions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals. The Court explained that an alias is a name a person uses publicly and habitually, usually in business transactions, in addition to the name registered at birth. A person may be known by several names, and these are called aliases.

The Court held that using a fictitious name or another person’s name in a single instance, without any indication that the user intends to be known by that name going forward, does not fall within the prohibition of C.A. No. 142, as amended.

In this case, Ursua used the name “Oscar Perez” in an isolated transaction. There was no evidence that he had used or intended to use that name as a second name. He was not even legally required to expose his real identity—he could have obtained the complaint as a matter of right since it was a public record.

The Court emphasized that the Anti-Alias Law was enacted primarily to curb the practice of adopting multiple names, which created confusion and fraud in business transactions. That confusion and fraud were absent here. As a penal statute, the law must be construed strictly against the State and in favor of the accused.

What the Law Actually Says

Section 1 of C.A. No. 142, as amended by R.A. No. 6085, provides that, except for pseudonyms in literary, cinema, television, radio, entertainment, or athletic events where such use is accepted practice, no person shall use any name different from the one registered at birth in the local civil registry, or with which he was baptized for the first time. Any person desiring to use an alias must secure judicial authority through proceedings similar to a change of name, and no person may secure authority for more than one alias.

Practical Takeaways

• The Anti-Alias Law punishes the habitual or public use of a name different from one’s registered name, not a one-time slip.
• A single use of another person’s name, without intent to be known by it, is not an “alias” under the law.
• The law targets confusion and fraud in business transactions, not everyday situations where a person merely signs a logbook or receipt.
• To use an alias legally, one must obtain court approval and have it recorded in the local civil registry.
• Penal statutes are construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.