G.R. No. 192565 - Union Bank of the Philippines vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 192565)

Factual Background

The case arose from two complaints for sum of money with a prayer for writ of replevin filed by Union Bank of the Philippines against spouses Eddie and Eliza Tamondong and a John Doe, the first filed before the RTC, Branch 109, Pasay City on April 13, 1998 and the second filed March 15, 2000 and raffled to MeTC, Branch 47, Pasay City. Both complaints bore a Certification against Forum Shopping executed and sworn to by Desi Tomas. The second complaint alleged in its notarized certification that no other action involving the same issues had been commenced, an assertion that the subsequent information for perjury alleged was false.

Criminal Accusation and Information

The Information charged Desi Tomas with perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code for willfully and feloniously making untruthful statements under oath on a material matter before a competent person authorized to administer oaths, specifically alleging that on or about March 13, 2000 in Makati City she swore in a Verification/Certification/Affidavit that Union Bank of the Philippines had not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues while knowing that statement to be false.

Motion to Quash and Grounds Asserted

Desi Tomas filed a Motion to Quash on two principal grounds: first, improper venue because the Certification against Forum Shopping was presented and used in the Pasay City court and not in MeTC-Makati City where the certification was subscribed; and second, failure to charge an offense for lack of particularity as to the willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood, absence of any other pending action at the time the second complaint was filed, and conflation of perjury by false testimony with perjury by false affidavit.

MeTC-Makati City Rulings

The MeTC-Makati City denied the Motion to Quash and later denied the motion for reconsideration, reasoning that it had jurisdiction because the Certificate against Forum Shopping was notarized in Makati City and that the Information sufficiently alleged the elements of perjury.

RTC-Makati City Proceedings and Ruling

The petitioners sought certiorari in RTC-Makati City to annul the MeTC-Makati City orders for grave abuse of discretion. The RTC dismissed the petition, holding that prevailing jurisprudence as reflected in Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy (G.R. Nos. 174168 & 179438, March 30, 2009) reaffirmed that the proper venue for perjury is where the offense or any of its essential ingredients occurred, and that where a document was subscribed and sworn to in a city that city is the proper venue. The RTC concluded MeTC-Makati City did not commit grave abuse and additionally ruled the Rule 65 petition was premature because the petitioners could challenge venue on appeal in the principal criminal action.

The Petition to the Supreme Court and Contentions

The petitioners asked the Supreme Court to reverse the RTC and quash the Information, relying principally on Ilusorio v. Bildner and United States v. Canet, which they argued place venue at the place of filing or presentation of the false document rather than at the place of notarization. The petitioners contended that in Ilusorio the consummating act was the filing of verified petitions in court that contained false statements, and that the present case is analogous because materiality and criminal intent manifested when the certification was presented to the Pasay court.

Solicitor General's Position

In his Manifestation and Motion in lieu of Comment, the Solicitor General sided with the petitioners on the applicability of Ilusorio v. Bildner and argued that the lis mota of perjury is the deliberate giving of false evidence in the court where the evidence is material. He observed that criminal intent to assert a falsehood only became manifest before MeTC-Pasay City when the certification was presented.

Issue Presented to the Court

The question before the Court was whether the proper venue and court for the prosecution of perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code was Makati City, where the Certification against Forum Shopping was notarized and sworn to, or Pasay City, where the certification was presented to the trial court.

Supreme Court Ruling and Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit and held that MeTC-Makati City was the proper venue and court to take cognizance of the perjury case. The Court affirmed that all essential elements constituting perjury by way of a false affidavit were alleged in the Information to have occurred in Makati City and ordered costs against the petitioners.

Legal Basis for Venue and Jurisdiction

The Court reviewed the governing procedural provisions, emphasizing Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which locates venue where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred, and Section 10, Rule 110, which permits sufficiency of the complaint if it shows that the offense or some essential ingredient occurred within the court’s jurisdiction. The Court explained that venue is an essential element of criminal jurisdiction because trial courts are territorially limited and because the locus onde the offense occurred ensures availability of witnesses and defense facilities.

Elements of Perjury and Sufficiency of the Information

Relying on authority such as Monfort III v. Salvatierra, the Court recited the elements of perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code and found the Information sufficiently alleged each element to have occurred in Makati City: execution of the Certificate against Forum Shopping, administration of the oath before a notary public, the willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood, and that the affidavit was made for a legal purpose in a case where the law required an oath. The Court stressed that the willful falsehood was alleged to have been knowingly made before a notary in Makati City, and therefore venue lay in Makati.

Reconciliation of Precedents and the Historical Context of Perjury Law

The Court examined the lineage of precedent beginning with United States v. Canet and the earlier Act No. 1697, which treated the execution of a false affidavit as punishable and supported venue at the place of presentation when the relevant harm was effected by submission to a tribunal. The Court distinguished that historical context from the evolution under the present Revised Penal Code, which differentiates false testimony in criminal, civil, and other proceedings and se

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 192565)

Parties and Procedural Posture

UNION BANK OF THE, PHILIPPINES and DESI TOMAS filed a petition for certiorari in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, Makati City, after the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 63, Makati City denied a motion to quash an information for perjury.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES filed the Information charging DESI TOMAS with perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code for making a false Certificate against Forum Shopping.
The RTC-Makati City dismissed the petition for certiorari and the petitioners then filed a Rule 45 petition with the Court.
The case was referred to the Court En Banc to resolve an apparent conflict between the rulings in Ilusorio v. Bildner and Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy.

Key Facts

UNION BANK OF THE, PHILIPPINES filed two complaints for sum of money with prayer for writ of replevin, one docketed as Civil Case No. 98-0717 before the RTC, Branch 109, Pasay City, and another docketed as Civil Case No. 342-000 raffled to the MeTC, Branch 47, Pasay City.
DESI TOMAS executed and signed the required Certificate against Forum Shopping attached to both complaints.
The Information alleged that on or about March 13, 2000 in Makati City, DESI TOMAS willfully and knowingly made untruthful statements under oath in the Verification/Certification/Affidavit of merit of Civil Case No. 342-00, MeTC, Pasay City.
The alleged falsity consisted of a declaration that UNION BANK OF THE, PHILIPPINES had not commenced any other action involving the same issues, despite an earlier suit filed in Pasay City.

Procedural History

DESI TOMAS filed a Motion to Quash raising improper venue and insufficiency of the Information as grounds.
The MeTC-Makati City denied the Motion to Quash on the ground that the Certificate against Forum Shopping was notarized in Makati City and that the Information sufficiently charged perjury.
The MeTC-Makati City denied the motion for reconsideration.
The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari in RTC-Makati City, which dismissed the petition relying on the Court's decision in Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy and held that the MeTC-Makati City did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
The petitioners filed the present Rule 45 petition to this Court challenging the RTC decision.

Issue

The dispositive issue was whether venue for the perjury charge under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code lies in Makati City, where the Certificate against Forum Shopping was subscribed and sworn to, or in Pasay City, where the Certification was presented to the trial court.

Holding and Disposition

The Court DENIED the petition for lack of merit and held that the MeTC-Makati City was the proper venue and proper court to take cognizance of the perjury case.
Costs were imposed against the petitioners.

Reasoning

The Court reiterated that venue is an essential element of jurisdiction in crim