Unionbank v. People
Both complaints (representing UBP) showed that Tomas executed
G.R. No. 192565 | 667 SCRA 113 | Feb. 28, 2012 | Brion, J.
Petition: rule 45
Petitioners: Unionbank of the Philippines and Desi Tomas
Respondents: People of the Philippines
Section 15, Rule 110
DOCTRINE
• The crime of perjury committed through the making of a false
affidavit under Article 183 of the RPC is committed at the time the
affiant subscribes and swears to his or her affidavit since it is at that
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 is neither criminal nor civil, venue is at the place where
the testimony under oath is given. If in lieu of or as supplement to the
actual testimony made in a 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 Information to be constitutive of the
crime committed.
Relevant Provision
Section 15, Rule 110, Rules of Court: Place where action is to be instituted. –
(a) subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the
court of the municipality or territory where the offense was committed or
where any of its essential ingredients occurred.
(b) where an offense is committed in a train, aircraft or other public or private
vehicle in the course of its trip, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried
in the court of any municipality or territory where said train, aircraft, or other
vehicle passed during its trip, including the place of departure and arrival.
(c) Where an offense is committed on board a vessel in the course of its voyage,
the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the first port of
entry or of any municipality or territory where the vessel passed during such
voyage, subject to the generally accepted principles of international law.
(d) Crimes committed outside the Philippines but punishable under Article 2 of
the Revised Penal Code shall be cognizable by the court where the criminal
action is first filed.
FACTS
a. Petitioner Desi Tomas was accused of perjury. The accusation
stemmed from UBP’s two (2) complaints for a sum of money against
spouses. Tamondong and a John Doe. The first complaint was
filed before RTC br. 109, Pasay City on Apr. 13, 1998. The
second complaint was filed on Mar. 15, 2000 and was raffled to
MeTC br. 47, Pasay City.
b.
and signed a certification against Forum Shopping.
i. Accordingly, she was charged of deliberately violating Art. 183 of
the RPC (Perjury) by falsely declaring under oath in the
Certificate against Forum Shopping in the second complaint that
she did not commence any other action or proceeding involving
the same issue in another tribunal or agency.
c. Tomas moved to quash, citing two grounds.
i. She argued that venue was improperly laid since it is the
Pasay City Court (where the cert. against forum shopping
was submitted and used) and not the MeTC- Makati (where
the cert. against forum shopping was subscribed) that has
jurisdiction over the perjury case.
d. The MeTC- Makati denied motion to quash the information for
1
perjury , ruling that it has jurisdiction over the case since the
certificate was notarized in Makati. Motion for reconsideration
was denied as well.
2. Court Proceedings / Procedural History
a. RTC: DISMISSED certiorari petition of petitioners.
i. Petitioner: certiorari to annul and set aside the MeTC-Makati City
orders on ground of grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners
argued that venue and jurisdiction should be in the place where
the false document was presented.
ii. RATIONALE: the MeTC- Makati has jurisdiction to try and decide
2
the case for perjury since the gist of the complaint constituting
the charge against Tomas dwells solely on the act of subscribing
to a false certification.
iii. RTC denied motion for reconsideration.
b. Hence, this petition where the petitioners pray for reversal of the
RTC decision, and quash the Information for perjury against Tomas.
1
Information for perjury against Tomas 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, the above-named
accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously make untruthful
statements under oath upon a material matter before a competent person authorized
to administer oath which the law requires to wit: said accused stated in the
Verification/Certification/Affidavit of merit of a complaint for sum of money with prayer
for a writ of replevin docketed as [Civil] Case No. 342-00 of the Metropolitan Trial
Court[,] Pasay City, that the Union Bank of the Philippines has not commenced any
other action or proceeding involving the same issues in another tribunal or agency,
accused knowing well that said material statement was false thereby making a willful
and deliberate assertion of falsehood.
Page 1 of 2

ISSUES
1. W/N MeTC – Makati, where cert. against forum shopping was notarized,
(and not Pasay City, where the cert. was presented to the trial court) that
has jurisdiction over the perjury case, and therefore quashal of
information for perjury was validly denied. – YES, MeTC- Makati is the
proper venue and proper court.
RULING & RATIO
1. YES, MeTC- Makati is the proper venue and proper court to take
cognizance of the perjury case against petitioners. Denial of motion
of quash valid.
a. Petitioner: contend that the ruling in Ilusorio is more applicable
than the ruling in Sy Tiong
i. Ilusorio – facts showed that filing of petitions in court
containing false statements was the essential ingredient that
consummated the perjury.
ii. Sy Tiong – perjurious statements were made in a Gen. Info.
Sheet (GIS), submitted to the SEC.
iii. Sol Gen shared petitioners view. Sol Gen opined that the lis
mota of perjury is the deliberate or intentional giving of false
evidence in the court where the evidence is material. In this
case, Sol Gen observed that the criminal intent to assert a
falsehood under oath only became manifest before the
MeTC- Pasay.
b. Court: in determining 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 Revised Rules of Crim. Pro.
Provides that “subject toe existing laws, the criminal action shall
be instituted and tried in the court or municipality or territory
where the offense was committed or where any of its
essential ingredients occurred.”
c. Sec. 15, R 110 should be read with Sec. 10, R 110 which
provides that “ 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 jurisdiction of the court, unless the particular
place where it was committed constitutes an essential element of
the offense charged or is necessary for its identification.”
d. Both provisions place venue and jurisdiction over criminal cases
not only in the court where the offense was committed, but also
where any of its essential ingredients took place. The venue of
action and of jurisdiction are deemed sufficiently alleged where
the Information states that the offense was committed or some of
its essential ingredients occurred at a place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court.
3
e. As regards perjury , the material matter in a certificate against
forum shopping is the truth of the required declarations which is
designed to guard against litigants pursuing simultaneous
remedies in different fora.
f. Allegations in the complaint and information must be examined
with Section 15, Rule 110. Court finds that the allegations in the
Information sufficiently support a finding that Tomas committed
the crime of perjury within the territorial jurisdiction of the MeTC-
Makati.
i. First element of perjury – execution of subject certificate
was alleged in the information to have been committed
in Makati.
ii. Second and fourth elements requiring certificate to be
under oath before notary public were also alleged in the
information to have been made in Makati.
iii. Third element of willful and deliberate falsehood also
alleged to have been committed in Makati, not Pasay as
indicated in the last portion of the Information.
g. Tomas’ deliberate and intentional assertion of falsehood was
allegedly shown when she made the false declaration in the
certificate against forum shopping before a notary public in
Makati City, despite her knowledge that the material statements
she subscribed and swore to were not true.
h. Makati City is the proper venue and MeTC-Makati is the proper
court to try the perjury case against Tomas, as all essential
elements constituting the crime of perjury were committed
within the territorial jurisdiction of Makati City, not Pasay
City.
i. The crime of perjury committed through the making of a false
affidavit under Art. 183 of the RPC is committed a the time the
affiant subscribes and swears to his or her affidavit since it is at
that time that all the elements of the crime of perjury are
executed.
DISPOSITION
• PETITION DENIED.
3
Elements of Perjury Art. 183 –
(a) That the accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon
a material matter.
(b) That the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to
receive and administer oath.
(c) That in the statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate
assertion of a falsehood.
(d) That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or
made for a legal purpose.
Page 2 of 2