Case Digest (G.R. No. 192565) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Union Bank of the Philippines and Desi Tomas v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 192565, February 28, 2012), petitioner Union Bank of the Philippines filed two civil complaints for sum of money with prayer for a writ of replevin against spouses Eddie and Eliza Tamondong and a John Doe. The first complaint (Civil Case No. 98-0717) was filed on April 13, 1998 before RTC, Branch 109, Pasay City. The second complaint (Civil Case No. 342-00) was filed on March 15, 2000 before MeTC, Branch 47, Pasay City. In both pleadings, bank officer Desi Tomas executed a Certificate against Forum Shopping, declaring under oath that no other action involving the same issue was pending. Believing this declaration false, the People charged Tomas with perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code, alleging that she knowingly made untruthful statements in Pasay City but subscribed and sworn to the affidavit in Makati City on March 13, 2000. Tomas moved to quash the Information on grounds of Case Digest (G.R. No. 192565) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background
- Petitioners Union Bank of the Philippines and Desi Tomas filed a petition for certiorari before RTC-Makati City to annul the MeTC-Makati City orders denying their Motion to Quash the Information for perjury.
- Tomas was charged under Article 183 of the RPC for making false statements under oath in a Certificate against Forum Shopping notarized in Makati City on March 13, 2000.
- Proceedings below
- The MeTC-Makati City denied the Motion to Quash on grounds of proper venue (notarization in Makati) and sufficiency of the Information; it also denied reconsideration.
- The RTC-Makati City dismissed the petition for certiorari, holding that Makati City was the correct venue; it likewise denied reconsideration.
- Petition to the Supreme Court
- The petitioners filed a Rule 45 petition seeking reversal of the RTC-Makati City decision and quashal of the Information.
- They invoked Ilusorio v. Bildner to argue that venue lay in Pasay City (where the certificate was filed), a view echoed by the Solicitor General.
Issues:
- Whether the proper venue for perjury under Article 183 of the RPC is Makati City (where the affidavit was notarized) or Pasay City (where the Certificate against Forum Shopping was presented to court).
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)