G.R. No. 134503 - Agbay vs. Deputy Ombudsman for the Military

Case Summary (G.R. No. 134503)

Motion to Quash: Grounds Advanced by the Accused

Tomas moved to quash the information on two principal grounds: (1) improper venue and jurisdiction — the certificate was presented and used in Pasay City so the perjury should be tried in Pasay rather than Makati where the certificate was subscribed; and (2) failure to allege the elements of perjury with particularity — in particular, that (a) the willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood was not specified in relation to any other proceeding, (b) there was allegedly no other pending proceeding at the time the complaint was filed, and (c) the Information described perjury by making a false affidavit while the allegations suggested perjury by giving false testimony.

MeTC‑Makati Ruling on the Motion to Quash

The MeTC‑Makati denied the motion to quash, finding that it had jurisdiction because the Certificate against Forum Shopping was notarized (subscribed and sworn to) in Makati City. The court also deemed the Information sufficient to charge Tomas with perjury. A motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.

RTC‑Makati Review and Ruling on the Rule 65 Petition

The petitioners sought certiorari relief from the RTC‑Makati, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the MeTC. The RTC dismissed the Rule 65 petition, relying principally on Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy and related jurisprudence to hold that venue for perjury is proper where the offense — including essential ingredients like subscription and oath — occurred; because the certification was subscribed and sworn to in Manila/Makati, Makati was proper venue. The RTC distinguished Ilusorio on the facts and held that Ilusorio involved introduction and use of false documents in court rather than mere execution of the document.

Supreme Court Issue Presented

The Supreme Court framed the controlling issue as whether the proper venue for the perjury charged under Article 183 is Makati City (where the Certificate against Forum Shopping was notarized/subscribed and sworn) or Pasay City (where the Certification was presented to and used by the trial court).

Governing Principles on Venue and Criminal Jurisdiction

The Court reiterated that venue is a jurisdictional requirement in criminal cases and that Section 15(a), Rule 110, of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure authorizes institution and trial of a criminal action in the court where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred. This must be read with Section 10, Rule 110, which allows allegations in the information to be sufficient if they show the offense or some essential ingredient occurred within the court’s territorial jurisdiction, unless the particular place is an essential element of the offense.

Elements of Perjury under Article 183 and Their Allegation

Article 183 penalizes knowingly making untruthful statements under oath or making an affidavit upon any material matter before a competent person where the law requires an oath. The elements are: (a) a statement under oath or affidavit on a material matter; (b) before a competent officer authorized to administer oaths; (c) a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood; and (d) the statement/affidavit is required by law or made for a legal purpose. The Court found that the Information sufficiently alleged that all these elements occurred in Makati City: the Certificate was executed there, sworn before a notary public there, and the willful falsehood was alleged as committed at the time of subscription and oath in Makati.

Court’s Application of Law to the Facts

Applying Section 15(a), Rule 110 and the elements of Article 183, the Court concluded that the crime of perjury — insofar as it arises from making a false affidavit — is consummated when the affiant subscribes and swears to the affidavit. Because Tomas’s alleged false certification was sworn in Makati, Makati constituted the locus of the essential acts, and MeTC‑Makati was the proper court to take cognizance of the information.

Historical Background and Precedential Distinctions (Canet, Ilusorio, Sy Tiong)

The Court traced the evolution of perjury jurisprudence in the Philippines to explain conflicting lines of authority. Early authorities under Act No. 1697 (e.g., United States v. Canet, 1915) treated the presentation of a false affidavit in court as the consummating act and located venue where the false document was presented. Later rulings under the present Revised Penal Code have distinguished perjury committed by making false affidavits from perjury by false testimony in proceedings. Ilusorio (2008) applied Canet’s logic to verified petitions filed in court — focusing on the place of filing/submission because that is where the falsehood became material to the tribunal. Sy Tiong (2009), in contrast, involved a false General Information Sheet subscribed elsewhere, and the Court held the perjury was consummated where the affidavit was subscribed and sworn.

Clarification and Reconciliation of Precedent

The Court reconciled the precedents by drawing a principled distinction: when the offense is perjury by making a false affidavit under Article 183, the critical act is the making (subscr

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 134503)

Case Citation and Panel

G.R. No. 192565; decision promulgated February 28, 2012; reported at 683 Phil. 108; en banc.
Decision written by Justice Brion. Justices Corona, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, and Perlas‑Bernabe, JJ., concurred. Justice Del Castillo was on official leave; Justice Sereno was on leave.
The case was filed as a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari.

Parties and Posture

Petitioners: Union Bank of the Philippines (hereafter "Union Bank") and Desi Tomas (hereafter "Tomas").
Respondent: People of the Philippines.
Procedural posture: Petitioners sought reversal of a Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati City decision dismissing their certiorari petition that challenged the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Makati City orders denying Tomas’s motion to quash the information for perjury (Article 183, Revised Penal Code).

Antecedent Facts

Tomas executed and signed a Certification (Certificate) against Forum Shopping in two complaints for sum of money with prayer for writ of replevin filed by Union Bank against spouses Eddie and Eliza Tamondong and a John Doe.
The first complaint: Civil Case No. 98-0717, filed before RTC, Branch 109, Pasay City on April 13, 1998.
The second complaint: Civil Case No. 342-00, filed on March 15, 2000, raffled to the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 47, Pasay City.
The Information alleged that Tomas, on or about March 13, 2000, in Makati City, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously made untruthful statements under oath before a competent person authorized to administer oaths, stating in the Verification/Certification/Affidavit of merit of Civil Case No. 342-00 MeTC‑Pasay that Union Bank had not commenced any other action involving the same issues in another tribunal or agency, knowing that said statement was false—thereby charging her with perjury under Article 183, RPC.

Information Alleging Perjury — Textual Allegations

The Information explicitly alleged that: on or about March 13, 2000, in Makati City, Tomas made untruthful statements under oath before a competent person authorized to administer oath; specifically, she stated in the Verification/Certification/Affidavit of merit of Civil Case No. 342-00 MeTC‑Pasay that Union Bank had not commenced any other action involving the same issues in another tribunal or agency, knowing that the statement was false and thus making a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood.

Motion to Quash — Grounds Advanced by Tomas

Ground 1: Improper venue — argued that venue should be the Pasay City court where the Certificate against Forum Shopping was submitted and used (MeTC‑Pasay), not MeTC‑Makati City where the Certificate was subscribed (notarized).
Ground 2: Failure to state an offense — contended that:
- The third element of perjury (willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood) was not alleged with particularity; the Information did not specify what other action or proceeding involving the same issues had been commenced.
- There was no other action or proceeding pending in another court when the second complaint was filed.
- The Information described perjury by giving false testimony while the allegations effectively described perjury by making a false affidavit (a claimed mismatch between the mode of perjury charged and the factual allegations).

MeTC‑Makati City Orders

MeTC‑Makati City denied Tomas’s Motion to Quash, ruling that:
- It had jurisdiction because the Certificate against Forum Shopping was notarized (subscribed and sworn to) in Makati City.
- The Information sufficiently charged Tomas with perjury, including the willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood.
MeTC‑Makati City denied Tomas’s motion for reconsideration (order dated August 28, 2009).

Petition for Certiorari to RTC‑Makati City and RTC Ruling

Petitioners availed of Rule 65 certiorari relief before RTC‑Makati City, alleging grave abuse of discretion by MeTC‑Makati City in denying the motion to quash.
Petitioners relied on United States v. Canet and Ilusorio v. Bildner, arguing that venue and jurisdiction should lie where the false document was presented (i.e., where the Certification was used/submitted).
RTC‑Makati City dismissed the petition and held that:
- Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy reaffirmed the long-standing rule that criminal action must be instituted in the court where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred.
- Because the subject document (the Certification) was subscribed and sworn to in Manila (used as example in Sy Tiong), the Manila court was proper venue; analogously, Makati City where Tomas subscribed and swore to the Certification was proper venue here.
- The court distinguished Ilusorio on factual grounds: in Ilusorio the alleged crime involved the introduction of false evidence through subject documents before another court, while in the present case the gist of the complaint dwells solely on the act of subscribing to a false certification.
- RTC concluded MeTC‑Makati City did not commit grave abuse since its order was based on jurisprudence later than Ilusorio, and the facts between Ilusorio and the present case differ.
- RTC also found the Rule 65 certiorari petition improper because petitioners could avail themselves of remedy by appeal in the principal case.

Petition to the Supreme Court — Relief Sought and Positions

Petitioners asked the Supreme Court to reverse the RTC‑Makati City decision and to quash the Information for perjury against Tomas, arguing Ilusorio is more applicable and that the consummation of perjury occurred at the place where the petitions containing the false statements were filed (i.e., where false statements were presented).
The Solicitor General filed a Manifestation and Motion in lieu of Comment, treated as the Comment, aligning with petitioners’ view and relying on Ilusorio; SG opined that the libro moti (the criminal intent) in perjury is the deliberate giving of false evidence in the court where the evidence is material, and that criminal intent to assert falsehood became manifest only before MeTC‑Pasay City.

Issue Presented to the Court

Whether the proper venue for prosecution of per