Professional Documents
Culture Documents
*
UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and DESI TOMAS,
petitioners,vs.PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,respondent.
_______________
*ENBANC.
114
114 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People
thecase.Thereasonforthisruleistwofold.First,thejurisdictionoftrial
courts is limited to welldefined territories such that a trial court can only
hear and try cases involving crimes committed within its territorial
jurisdiction.Second, laying the venue in the locuscriminis is grounded on
thenecessityandjusticeofhavinganaccusedontrialinthemunicipalityof
provincewherewitnessesandotherfacilitiesforhisdefenseareavailable.
Same Same Same Same Section 10 and Section 15(a), Rule 110 of
the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure place the venue and
jurisdictionovercriminalcasesnotonlyinthecourtwheretheoffensewas
committed, but also where any of its essential ingredients took place.
Unlike in civil cases, a finding of improper venue in criminal cases
carries jurisdictional consequences. In determining the venue where the
criminalactionistobeinstitutedandthecourtwhichhasjurisdictionoverit,
Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
provides:(a)Subjecttoexistinglaws,thecriminalactionshallbeinstituted
and tried in the court or municipality or territory where the offense was
committedorwhereanyofitsessentialingredientsoccurred.[emphasis
ours]TheaboveprovisionshouldbereadinlightofSection10,Rule110of
the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which states: Place of
commissionoftheoffense.The complaint or information is sufficient if it
can be understood from its allegations that the offense was committed or
some of its essential ingredients occurred at some place within the
jurisdictionofthecourt,unlesstheparticularplacewhereitwascommitted
constitutesanessentialelementoftheoffensechargedorisnecessaryforits
identification.Bothprovisionscategoricallyplacethevenueandjurisdiction
overcriminalcasesnot only in the court where the offense was committed,
butalsowhereanyofitsessentialingredientstookplace.Inotherwords,the
venueofactionandofjurisdictionaredeemedsufficientlyallegedwherethe
Information states that the offense was committed or some of its essential
ingredientsoccurredataplacewithintheterritorialjurisdictionofthecourt.
Same Civil Procedure Certificate against Forum Shopping
Certificateagainstforumshoppingcanbemadeeitherbyastatementunder
oath in the complaint or initiatory pleading asserting a claim or relief it
may also be in a sworn certification annexed to the complaint or initiatory
pleading.Section5,Rule7ofthe1997Rulesof
115
VOL.667,FEBRUARY28,2012 115
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People
116
116 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People
117
VOL.667,FEBRUARY28,2012 117
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People
the testimony under oath is given.We hold that our ruling in Sy Tiong is
moreinaccordwithArticle183oftheRPCandSection15(a),Rule110of
the2000RevisedRulesofCriminalProcedure.Toreiteratefortheguidance
of the Bar and the Bench, the crime of perjury committed through the
makingofafalseaffidavitunderArticle183oftheRPCiscommittedatthe
timetheaffiantsubscribesandswearstohisorheraffidavitsinceitisatthat
time that all the elements of the crime of perjury are executed. When the
crime is committed through false testimony under oath in a proceeding that
isneithercriminalnorcivil,venueisattheplacewherethetestimonyunder
oathisgiven.Ifinlieuoforassupplementtotheactualtestimonymadeina
proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, a written sworn statement is
submitted, venue may either be at the place where the sworn statement is
submitted or where the oath was taken as the taking of the oath and the
submission are both material ingredients of the crime committed. In all
cases, determination of venue shall be based on the acts alleged in the
Informationtobeconstitutiveofthecrimecommitted.
BRION,J.:
WereviewinthisRule45petition,thedecision1oftheRegional
Trial Court, Branch 65, Makati City (RTCMakati City) in Civil
Case No. 091038. The petition seeks to reverse and set aside the
RTCMakati City decision dismissing the petition for certiorari of
petitioners Union Bank of the Philippines (Union Bank) and Desi
Tomas (collectively, the petitioners). The RTC found that the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 63, Makati City (MeTCMakati
City)didnotcommitanygrave
_______________
1DatedApril28,2010Rollo,pp.137143.
118
118 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People
abuseofdiscretionindenyingthemotiontoquashtheinformation
forperjuryfiledbyTomas.
TheAntecedents
TomaswaschargedincourtforperjuryunderArticle183ofthe
Revised Penal Code (RPC) for making a false narration in a
Certificate against Forum Shopping. The Information against her
reads:
That on or about the 13th day of March 2000 in the City of Makati,
Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court,theabovenamedaccused,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyand
feloniously make untruthful statements under oath upon a material matter
before a competent person authorized to administer oath which the law
requirestowit:saidaccusedstatedintheVerification/Certification/Affidavit
ofmeritofacomplaintforsumofmoneywithprayerforawritofreplevin
docketed as [Civil] Case No. 34200 of the Metropolitan Trial Court[,]
PasayCity,thattheUnionBankofthePhilippineshasnotcommencedany
other action or proceeding involving the same issues in another tribunal or
agency,accusedknowingwellthatsaidmaterialstatementwasfalsethereby
makingawillfulanddeliberateassertionoffalsehood.2
_______________
2Id.,atp.11.
119
VOL.667,FEBRUARY28,2012 119
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People
complaintthatshedidnotcommenceanyotheractionorproceeding
involvingthesameissueinanothertribunaloragency.
Tomas filed a Motion to Quash,3 citing two grounds. First, she
arguedthatthevenuewasimproperlylaidsinceitisthePasayCity
court(wheretheCertificateagainstForumShoppingwassubmitted
and used) and not the MeTCMakati City (where the Certificate
against Forum Shopping was subscribed) that has jurisdiction over
the perjury case. Second, she argued that the facts charged do not
constituteanoffensebecause:(a)thethirdelementofperjurythe
willfulanddeliberateassertionoffalsehoodwasnotallegedwith
particularitywithoutspecifyingwhattheotheractionorproceeding
commencedinvolvingthesameissuesinanothertribunaloragency
(b)therewasnootheractionorproceedingpendinginanothercourt
whenthesecondcomplaintwasfiledand(c)shewaschargedwith
perjury by giving false testimony while the allegations in the
Informationmakeoutperjurybymakingafalseaffidavit.
TheMeTCMakatiCitydeniedtheMotiontoQuash,rulingthat
ithasjurisdictionoverthecasesincetheCertificateagainstForum
Shopping was notarized in Makati City.4 The MeTCMakati City
alsoruledthattheallegationsintheInformationsufficientlycharged
Tomas with perjury.5 The MeTCMakati City subsequently denied
Tomasmotionforreconsideration.6
The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the RTC
MakatiCitytoannulandsetasidetheMeTCMakatiCityorderson
the ground of grave abuse of discretion. The petitioners anchored
theirpetitionontherulingsinUnited
_______________
3Id.,atpp.2937.
4OrderdatedMarch26,2009Rollo,pp.5556.
5Id.,atp.56.
6OrderdatedAugust28,2009,pp.6970.
120
120 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People
Statesv.Canet7andIlusoriov.Bildner8whichruledthatvenueand
jurisdiction should be in the place where the false document was
presented.
TheAssailedRTCDecision
In dismissing the petition for certiorari, the RTCMakati City
held:
TheRTCMakatiCityruledthattheMeTCMakatiCitydidnot
commitgraveabuseofdiscretionsincetheorderdenyingtheMotion
toQuashwasbasedonjurisprudencelaterthan
_______________
730Phil.371(1915).
8G.R.Nos.17393538,December23,2008,575SCRA272.
9Rollo,pp.142143.
121
VOL.667,FEBRUARY28,2012 121
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People
ThePetition
The petitioners pray that we reverse the RTCMakati City
decisionandquashtheInformationforperjuryagainstTomas.The
petitionerscontendthattheIlusoriorulingismoreapplicabletothe
present facts than our ruling in Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy Chim.11 They
argued that the facts in Ilusorio showed that the filing of the
petitions in court containing the false statements was the essential
ingredientthatconsummatedtheperjury.InSyTiong,theperjurious
statementsweremadeinaGeneralInformationSheet(GIS)thatwas
submittedtotheSecuritiesandExchangeCommission(SEC).
Interestingly,SolicitorGeneralJoseAnselmoI.Cadizsharedthe
petitioners view. In his Manifestation and Motion in lieu of
Comment (which we hereby treat as the Comment to the petition),
the Solicitor General also relied on Ilusorioand opined that the lis
motainthecrimeofperjuryisthedeliberateorintentionalgivingof
false evidence in the court where the evidence is material. The
Solicitor General observed that the criminal intent to assert a
falsehoodunderoathonlybecamemanifestbeforetheMeTCPasay
City.
TheIssue
_______________
10OrderdatedJune9,2010id.,atp.154.
11G.R.Nos.174168and179438,March30,2009,582SCRA517.
122
122 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People
TheCourtsRuling
WedenythepetitionandholdthattheMeTCMakatiCityis
thepropervenueandthepropercourttotakecognizanceofthe
perjurycaseagainstthepetitioners.
VenueofActionandCriminalJurisdiction
Venueisanessentialelementofjurisdictionincriminalcases.It
determines not only the place where the criminal action is to be
instituted,butalsothecourtthathasthejurisdictiontotryandhear
thecase.Thereasonforthisruleistwofold.First,thejurisdiction
of trial courts is limited to welldefined territories such that a trial
courtcanonlyhearandtrycasesinvolvingcrimescommittedwithin
its territorial jurisdiction.12 Second, laying the venue in the locus
criminis is grounded on the necessity and justice of having an
accusedontrialinthemunicipalityofprovincewherewitnessesand
otherfacilitiesforhisdefenseareavailable.13
Unlikeincivilcases,afindingofimpropervenueincriminal
cases carries jurisdictional consequences. In determining the
venue where the criminal action is to be instituted and the court
which has jurisdiction over it, Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000
RevisedRulesofCriminalProcedureprovides:
(a)Subjecttoexistinglaws,thecriminalactionshallbeinstitutedandtriedinthe
courtormunicipalityorterritorywheretheoffensewascommittedorwhere
anyofitsessentialingredientsoccurred.[emphasisours]
_______________
12UnitedStatesv.Cunanan,26Phil.376(1913).
13Parulanv.Reyes,78Phil.855(1947).
123
VOL.667,FEBRUARY28,2012 123
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People
TheaboveprovisionshouldbereadinlightofSection10,Rule
110ofthe2000RevisedRulesofCriminalProcedurewhichstates:
124
124 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People
orclaimhasbeenfiledorispending,heorsheshallreportthatfact
withinfivedaystherefromtothecourtwhereinhisorheraforesaid
complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. In relation to the
crimeofperjury,thematerialmatterinaCertificateagainstForum
Shoppingisthetruthoftherequireddeclarationswhichisdesigned
to guard against litigants pursuing simultaneous remedies in
differentfora.14
In this case, Tomas is charged with the crime of perjury under
Article183oftheRPCformakingafalseCertificateagainstForum
Shopping.TheelementsofperjuryunderArticle183are:
(a)Thattheaccusedmadeastatementunderoathorexecutedanaffidavitupona
materialmatter.
(b)Thatthestatementoraffidavitwasmadebeforeacompetentofficer,authorized
toreceiveandadministeroath.
(c)That in the statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate
assertionofafalsehood.
(d)Thattheswornstatementoraffidavitcontainingthefalsityisrequiredbylawor
madeforalegalpurpose.15(emphasisours)
Wherethejurisdictionofthecourtisbeingassailedinacriminal
case on the ground of improper venue, the allegations in the
complaintandinformationmustbeexaminedtogetherwithSection
15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
On this basis, we find that the allegations in the Information
sufficiently support a finding that the crime of perjury was
committedbyTomaswithintheterritorialjurisdictionoftheMeTC
MakatiCity.
The first element of the crime of perjury, the execution of the
subjectCertificateagainstForumShoppingwasallegedin
_______________
14Torres v. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation, G.R. No. 149634,
July6,2004,433SCRA455.
15MonfortIIIv.Salvatierra,G.R.No.168301,March5,2007,517SCRA447,461.
125
VOL.667,FEBRUARY28,2012 125
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People
That on or about the 13th day of March 2000 in the City of Makati,
Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court,theabovenamedaccused,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyand
feloniously make untruthful statements under oath upon a material matter
before a competent person authorized to administer oath which the law
requirestowit:saidaccusedstatedintheVerification/Certification/Affidavit
xxx.16
[S]aidaccusedstatedintheVerification/Certification/Affidavitofmeritofa
complaint for sum of money with prayer for a writof replevin docketed as
[Civil]CaseNo.34200oftheMetropolitanTrialCourt[,]PasayCity,that
the Union Bank of the Philippines has not commenced any other action or
proceedinginvolvingthesameissuesinanothertribunaloragency,accused
knowingwellthatsaidmaterialstatementwasfalsetherebymakingawillful
anddeliberateassertionoffalsehood.17(underscoringours)
_______________
16Supranote2.
17Ibid.
126
126 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People
nalProcedureasalltheessentialelementsconstitutingthecrimeof
perjurywerecommittedwithintheterritorialjurisdictionofMakati
City,notPasayCity.
ReferraltotheEnBanc
ThepresentcasewasreferredtotheEnBancprimarilytoaddress
theseemingconflictbetweenthedivisionrulingsoftheCourtinthe
Ilusoriocasethatiscitedasbasisofthispetition,andtheSy Tiong
casethatwasthebasisoftheassailedRTCMakatiCityruling.
TheCitedIlusorioandSyTiongCases
The subject matter of the perjury charge in Ilusorio involved
falsestatementscontainedinverifiedpetitionsfiled with the court
fortheissuanceofanewownersduplicatecopiesofcertificatesof
title. The verified petitions containing the false statements were
subscribedandsworntoinPasigCity,butwerefiledinMakatiCity
andTagaytayCity.Thequestionposedwas:whichcourt(PasigCity,
Makati City and/or Tagaytay City) had jurisdiction to try and hear
theperjurycases?
WeruledthatthevenuesoftheactionwereinMakatiCityand
TagaytayCity,theplaceswheretheverifiedpetitionswerefiled.The
Court reasoned out that it was only upon filing that the intent to
assertanallegedfalsehoodbecamemanifestandwherethealleged
untruthful statement found relevance or materiality. We cited as
jurisprudentialauthoritythecaseofUnitedStates.v.Caet18which
ruled:
Itisimmaterialwheretheaffidavitwassubscribedandsworn,solongasit
appearsfromtheinformationthatthedefendant,bymeansofsuchaffidavit,
swore to and knowingly submitted false evidence, material to a point at
issueinajudicialproceedingpendingintheCourtofFirstInstanceofIloilo
Province.Thegistofthe
_______________
18Supranote7,atp.378.
127
VOL.667,FEBRUARY28,2012 127
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People
offense charged is not the making of the affidavit in Manila, but the
intentional giving of false evidence in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo
Provincebymeansofsuchaffidavit.[emphasisandunderscoringdeleted]
InSyTiong,theperjuredstatementsweremadeinaGISwhich
was subscribed and sworn to in Manila. We ruled that the proper
venue for the perjury charges was in Manila where the GIS was
subscribedandswornto.Weheldthattheperjurywasconsummated
in Manila where the false statement was made. As supporting
jurisprudence, we cited the case of Villanueva v. Secretary of
Justice19 that, in turn, cited an American case entitled U.S. v.
Norris.20WeruledinVillanuevathat
TheCrimeofPerjury:ABackground
TohaveabetterappreciationoftheissuefacingtheCourt,alook
at the historical background of how the crime of perjury
(specifically,Article183oftheRPC)evolvedinourjurisdiction.
TheRPCpenalizesthreeformsoffalsetestimonies.Thefirstis
false testimony for and against the defendant in a criminal case
(Articles180and181,RPC)thesecondisfalsetestimonyinacivil
case (Article 182, RPC) and the third is false testimony in other
cases (Article 183, RPC). Based on the Information filed, the
presentcaseinvolvesthe
_______________
19G.R.No.162187,November18,2005,475SCRA495,512.
20 300 U.S. 564 (1937). The perjury was based on a false testimony by the
defendantatthehearingbeforetheSenateCommitteeinNebraska.
128
128 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People
makingofanuntruthfulstatementinanaffidavitonamaterial
matter.
These RPC provisions, however, are not really the bases of the
rulingscitedbythepartiesintheirrespectivearguments.Thecited
Ilusorioruling,althoughissuedbythisCourtin2008,harkedback
to the case of Caet which was decided in 1915, i.e., before the
present RPC took effect.21 Sy Tiong, on the other hand, is a 2009
ruling that cited Villanueva, a 2005 case that in turn cited United
Statesv.Norris,a1937Americancase.Significantly,unlikeCaet,
SyTiongisentirelybasedonrulingsrenderedafterthepresentRPC
tookeffect.22
TheperjuriousactinCaetconsistedofaninformationcharging
perjury through the presentation in court of a motion
accompaniedbyafalseswornaffidavit.AtthetimetheCaetruling
was rendered, the prevailing law on perjury and the rules on
prosecution of criminal offenses were found in Section 3, Act No.
1697ofthePhilippineCommission,andinSubsection4,Section6
ofGeneralOrderNo.5823fortheproceduralaspect.
Section3ofActNo.1697reads:
_______________
21ThePenalCodeforthePhilippineswhichtookeffectfromJuly19,1887toDecember
31,1931.
22TookeffectonJanuary1,1932.
23EntitledTheLawonCriminalProcedurewhichtookeffectonApril23,1900.
129
VOL.667,FEBRUARY28,2012 129
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People
ofgivingtestimonyinanycourtofthePhilippineIslandsuntilsuchtimeas
thejudgmentagainsthimisreversed.
Thislawwascopied,withthenecessarychanges,fromSections
539224 and 539325 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.26
Act No. 1697 was intended to make the mere execution of a false
affidavitpunishableinourjurisdiction.27
In turn, Subsection 4, Section 6 of General Order No. 58
provided that the venue shall be the court of the place where the
crimewascommitted.
As applied and interpreted by the Court in Caet, perjury was
committedbytheactofrepresentingafalsedocumentinajudicial
proceeding.28ThevenueofactionwasheldbytheCourttobeatthe
placewherethefalsedocumentwaspresentedsincethepresentation
wastheactthatconsummatedthecrime.
The annotation of Justices Aquino and GrioAquino in their
textbook on the RPC29 interestingly explains the history of the
perjuryprovisionsofthepresentRPCandtracesaswellthelinkage
between Act No. 1697 and the present Code. To quote these
authors:30
_______________
24Everypersonwho,havingtakenanoathbeforeacompetenttribunal,officer,or
person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be
administered,thathewilltestify,declare,depose,orcertifytruly,orthatanywritten
testimony,declaration,deposition,orcertificatebyhimsubscribedistrue,willfully
andcontrarytosuchoathstatesorsubscribesanymaterialmatterwhichhedoesnot
believetobetrue,isguiltyofperjury.
25Thelawreferstosubornationofperjury.
26UnitedStatesv.Concepcion,13Phil.424(1909).
27Id.,atpp.428429.
28Peoplev.Cruz,etal.,197Phil.815112SCRA128(1982).
29RamonC.AquinoandCarolinaGrioAquino,2TheRevisedPenalCode,1997
ed.
30Id.,atpp.301302.
130
130 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People
Art.180wastakenfromart.318oftheOldPenalCodeandart.154of
Del Pans Proposed Correctional Code, while art. 181 was taken from art.
319oftheoldPenalCodeandArt.157ofDelPansProposedCorrectional
Code.Saidarts.318and319,togetherwithart.321oftheoldPenalCode,
wereimpliedlyrepealedbyAct1697,thePerjuryLaw,passedonAugust23,
1907, which in turn was expressly repealed by the Administrative Code of
1916,Act2657.InviewoftheexpressrepealofAct1697,arts.318and321
of the old Penal Code were deemed revived. However, Act 2718 expressly
revived secs. 3 and 4 of the Perjury Law. Art. 367 of the Revised Penal
CoderepealedActNos.1697and2718.
It should be noted that perjury under Acts 1697 and 2718 includes false
testimony,whereas,undertheRevisedPenalCode,falsetestimonyincludes
perjury. Our law on false testimony is of Spanish origin, but our law on
perjury (art. 183 taken from sec. 3 of Act 1697) is derived from American
statutes.The provisions of the old Penal Code on false testimony embrace
perjurycommittedincourtorinsomecontentiousproceeding,whileperjury
as defined in Act 1697 includes the making of a false affidavit. The
provisions of the Revised Penal Code on false testimony are more severe
andstrictthanthoseofAct1697onperjury.[italicsours]
131
VOL.667,FEBRUARY28,2012 131
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People
GISthatwassubscribedandsworntoinManilaandsubmittedtothe
SECinMandaluyongCity.Thus,thecaseinvolvedthemakingofan
affidavit, not an actual testimony in a proceeding that is neither
criminal nor civil. From this perspective, the situs of the oath, i.e.,
the place where the oath was taken, is the place where the offense
wascommitted. By implication, the proper venue would have been
the City of Mandaluyongthe site of the SEChad the charge
involvedanactualtestimonymadebeforetheSEC.
Incontrast,Caetinvolvedthepresentationincourtofamotion
supportedandaccompaniedbyanaffidavitthatcontainedafalsity.
With Section 3 of Act No. 1697 as basis, the issue related to the
submissionoftheaffidavitinajudicialproceeding.Thiscameata
time when Act No. 1697 was the perjury law, and made no
distinctionbetweenjudicialandotherproceedings,andatthesame
timeseparatelypenalizedthemakingoffalsestatementsunderoath
(unlikethepresentRPCwhichseparatelydealswithfalsetestimony
incriminal,civilandotherproceedings,whileatthesametimealso
penalizingthemakingoffalseaffidavits).Understandably,thevenue
shouldbetheplacewherethesubmissionwasmadetothecourtor
the situs of the court it could not have been the place where the
affidavit was sworn to simply because this was not the offense
chargedintheInformation.
The case of Ilusorio cited the Caet case as its authority, in a
situationwheretheswornpetitionsfiledincourtfortheissuanceof
duplicatecertificatesoftitle(thatwereallegedlylost)werethecited
sworn statements to support the charge of perjury for the falsities
statedintheswornpetitions.TheCourtruledthatthepropervenue
should be the Cities of Makati and Tagaytay because it was in the
courtsofthesecitieswheretheintenttoassertanallegedfalsehood
became manifest and where the alleged untruthful statement finds
relevance or materiality in deciding the issue of whether new
ownersduplicatecopiesofthe[CertificateofCondominium
132
132 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People
Title]and[TransferCertificatesofTitle]mayissue.31TotheCourt,
whether the perjurious statements contained in the four petitions
were subscribed and sworn in Pasig is immaterial, the gist of the
offenseofperjurybeingtheintentionalgivingoffalsestatement,32
citingCaetasauthorityforitsstatement.
The statement in Ilusorio may have partly led to the present
confusiononvenuebecauseofitsverycategoricaltenorinpointing
to the considerations to be made in the determination of venue it
leavestheimpressionthattheplacewheretheoathwastakenisnot
atallamaterialconsideration,forgettingthatArticle183oftheRPC
clearly speaks of two situations while Article 182 of the RPC
likewiseappliestofalsetestimonyincivilcases.
The Ilusorio statement would have made perfect sense had the
basisforthechargebeenArticle182oftheRPC,ontheassumption
that the petition itself constitutes a false testimony in a civil case.
TheCaetrulingwouldthenhavebeencompletelyapplicableasthe
swornstatementisusedinacivilcase,althoughnosuchdistinction
wasmadeunderCaetbecausetheapplicablelawatthetime(Act
No.1697)didnotmakeanydistinction.
IfArticle183oftheRPCweretobeused,aswhatinfactappears
intheIlusorioruling,thenonlythatportionofthearticle,referring
to the making of an affidavit, would have been applicable as the
otherportionreferstofalsetestimonyinotherproceedingswhicha
judicialpetitionfortheissuanceofanewownersduplicatecopyof
a Certificate of Condominium Title is not because it is a civil
proceeding in court. As a perjury based on the making of a false
affidavit, what assumes materiality is the site where the oath was
taken as this is the place where the oath was made, in this case,
PasigCity.
_______________
31Ilusoriov.Bildner,supranote8,atp.283.
32Id.,atp.284.
133
VOL.667,FEBRUARY28,2012 133
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People
Procedurally,theruleonvenueofcriminalcaseshasbeensubject
tovariouschangesfromthetimeGeneralOrderNo.58wasreplaced
byRules106to122oftheRulesofCourtonJuly1,1940.Section
14,Rule106oftheRulesofCourtprovidedfortheruleonvenueof
criminalactionsanditexpresslyincluded,aspropervenue,theplace
where any one of the essential ingredients of the crime took place.
This change was followed by the passage of the 1964 Rules of
CriminalProcedure,33the1985RulesofCriminalProcedure,34 and
the2000RevisedRulesofCriminalProcedurewhichalladoptedthe
1940 Rules of Criminal Procedures expanded venue of criminal
actions. Thus, the venue of criminal cases is not only in the place
wheretheoffensewascommitted,butalsowhereanyofitsessential
ingredientstookplace.
In the present case, the Certification against Forum Shopping
was made integral parts of two complaints for sum of money with
prayer for a writ of replevin against the respondent spouses Eddie
Tamondong and Eliza B. Tamondong, who, in turn, filed a
complaintaffidavitagainstTomasforviolationofArticle183ofthe
RPC.AsallegedintheInformationthatfollowed,thecriminalact
charged was for the execution by Tomas of an affidavit that
containedafalsity.
Under the circumstances, Article 183 of the RPC is indeed the
applicable provision thus, jurisdiction and venue should be
determinedonthebasisofthisarticlewhichpenalizesone
_______________
33Section14,Rule110.Placewhereactionistobeinstituted.
(a) In all criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried in the
Courtofthemunicipalityorprovincewhereintheoffensewascommittedoranyone
oftheessentialingredientsthereoftookplace.
34Section15,Rule110.Placewhereactionistobeinstituted.
(a) Subject to existing laws, in all criminal prosecutions the action shall be
instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory wherein the offense
wascommittedoranyoneoftheessentialingredientsthereoftookplace.
134
134 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People
135
VOL.667,FEBRUARY28,2012 135
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People
Petitiondenied.
Notes.Forperjurytoexist,(1)theremustbeaswornstatement
that is required by law (2) it must be made under oath before a
competent officer (3) the statement contains a deliberate assertion
of falsehood and (4) the false declaration is with regard to a
materialmatter.(Masangkayvs.People,621SCRA231[2010])
Where the act of respondent allegedly constituting perjury
consists in the statement under oath which he made in the
certificationofnonforumshopping,theexistenceofperjuryshould
bedeterminedvisvistheelementsofforumshopping.(Yuvs.Lim,
631SCRA172[2010])
o0o
Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.