Case Digest (G.R. No. 192565)
Facts:
Union Bank of the Philippines and Desi Tomas v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 192565, February 28, 2012, Supreme Court En Banc, Brion, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Union Bank of the Philippines (Union Bank) and Desi Tomas seek annulment of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 63, Makati City orders denying Tomas's motion to quash an Information for perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The Information charged Tomas with making untruthful statements under oath in a Certificate against Forum Shopping attached to one of two complaints for sum of money with prayer for a writ of replevin filed by Union Bank against the spouses Eddie and Eliza Tamondong and a John Doe.
The factual backdrop is that Union Bank filed two complaints: Civil Case No. 98-0717 filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 109, Pasay City on April 13, 1998; and Civil Case No. 342-000 filed and raffled to MeTC, Branch 47, Pasay City on March 15, 2000. Tomas executed and signed the Certificate against Forum Shopping that accompanied the second complaint. The Information alleged that on or about March 13, 2000 in Makati City, Tomas willfully made untruthful statements under oath before a competent person, declaring in the Certification that Union Bank had not commenced any other action involving the same issues, when in fact an earlier action existed.
Tomas filed a Motion to Quash on two grounds: (1) improper venue — arguing the perjury was consummated where the false certification was presented to the Pasay court (where the document was used), not where it was notarized in Makati; and (2) insufficiency of the Information — asserting the willful-falsehood element was not alleged with specificity and that the facts described constituted perjury by making a false affidavit, not by giving false testimony. The MeTC‑Makati denied the Motion to Quash and motion for reconsideration, ruling it had jurisdiction because the Certificate was notarized in Makati and that the Information sufficiently charged perjury.
The petitioners then filed a certiorari petition in the RTC‑Makati (Civil Case No. 09‑1038) contending grave abuse of discretion by the MeTC and relying on United States v. Canet and Ilusorio v. Bildner, which hold that venue is where the false document was presented. The RTC‑Makati dismissed the petition, finding control jurisprudence in Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy Chim and holding that when perjury is by making a false affidavit, the crime is consummated where the affidavit was subscribed and sworn — here, Makati; the RTC also deemed a Rule 65 remedy inappropriate since an appeal in the principal case remained. The petitioners sought review by this Court under Rule 45. The Solicitor General filed a Comment supporting the petitioners and relying on Ilusorio, arguing the lis mota of perjury is the gi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Where is the proper venue for perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code when the alleged perjury consists of a false Certificate against Forum Shopping: the place where the certificate was subscribed and sworn (Makati City) or the place where the certification was presented and used i...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)