Case Summary (G.R. No. 118075)
Procedural History
- Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 63, Makati City denied Tomas’s motion to quash the perjury information for improper venue and insufficiency of allegations.
- Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 65, Makati City dismissed petitioners’ certiorari challenging the MeTC order, finding no grave abuse of discretion.
- Petitioners appealed by Rule 45 to the Supreme Court En Banc.
Issue Presented
Whether the perjury case should be tried in Makati City (where the affidavit was executed and sworn) or in Pasay City (where the challenged affidavit was presented to the court).
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (post-1990 decisions)
• Revised Penal Code, Article 183 (perjury by false affidavit)
• 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 110, Section 15(a) (venue where offense or any of its essential ingredients occurred)
• Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (Certificate against Forum Shopping requirements)
Ruling and Reasoning
- Venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional and lies where the offense or any essential ingredient occurred.
- Article 183 perjury elements—false material statement under oath before a competent officer—were all alleged to have occurred in Makati City:
- Execution of the Certificate against Forum Shopping
- Administration of oath by a Makati notary public
- Willful assertion of falsehood knowing another case existed
- Presentation of the affidavit in Pasay City is not an essential ingredient under Article 183, which penalizes the making of a false affidavit rather than its submission.
- Supreme Court precedents: Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy Chim (2009) holds that perjury by false affidavit is consummated where the oath is taken. Ilusorio v. Bildner (2008), which focused on false judicial petitions, does not apply here because it treated sworn statements as part of civil-case testimony under Article 182.
- All elements of the offense were committed in Makati City; therefore, the MeTC-Makati City properly had venue and jurisdiction.
Historical Background of Perjury Law
• Pre-RPC perjury laws (Act No. 1697 of 1907) punished false affidavits without distinction between civil and other proceedings; venue lay where false documents were submitted.
• Revised Penal Code distinguis
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 118075)
Antecedents and Factual Background
- Desi Tomas executed a Certificate against Forum Shopping in two replevin complaints filed by Union Bank of the Philippines against spouses Eddie and Eliza Tamondong and a John Doe.
- The first complaint (Civil Case No. 98-0717) was filed before RTC Branch 109, Pasay City on April 13, 1998.
- The second complaint (Civil Case No. 342-00) was filed on March 15, 2000 and raffled to MeTC Branch 47, Pasay City.
- In the Certification against Forum Shopping annexed to the second complaint, Tomas swore that Union Bank had not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in another tribunal, despite knowledge to the contrary.
- On March 13, 2000 in Makati City, Tomas allegedly willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously made untruthful statements under oath before a competent officer, constituting perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Information and Charge
- The Information charged Tomas with perjury for making a false narration in a Certificate against Forum Shopping.
- It alleged that she knowingly asserted the falsity of Union Bank’s prior suit, knowing a prior action was on file.
- The prosecution relied on Article 183, RPC, which penalizes knowingly making untruthful statements under oath on a material matter when the law requires it.
Proceedings in MeTC and RTC-Makati City
- Tomas filed a Motion to Quash in the MeTC-Makati City on grounds of improper venue and failure to state an offense with requisite particularity.
- MeTC-Makati City denied the motion, holding jurisdiction rested in Makati where the certificate was notarized and that the Information sufficiently alleged all elements of perjury.
- A motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
- Union Bank and Tomas then filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari in RTC-Makati City, alleging grave abuse of discretion by MeTC-Makati City.
- The RTC denied the petition, relying on Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy for the rule that venue lies where the false document was subscribed and sworn to (Makati) and distinguishing Ilusorio v. Bildner on its facts.
Issue Presented
- Whether the proper venue for the perjury prosecution under Article 183, RPC, is Makati City (where the Certificate against Forum Sh