View full case

UNION BANK OF THE v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

This is a Rule 45 petition seeking to reverse the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 65, Makati City in Civil Case No. 09-1038. The petitioners, Union Bank of the Philippines and Desi Tomas, filed a petition for certiorari to annul and set aside the MeTC-Makati City orders dismissing their motion to quash the information for perjury filed against Tomas. Tomas was charged with perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) for making false statements in a Certificate against Forum Shopping. The accusations stemmed from Union Bank's two complaints for sum of money with prayer for a writ of replevin. Tomas filed a motion to quash the information, arguing that the venue was improperly laid and that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. The MeTC-Makati City denied the motion to quash and the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the RTC-Makati City. The RTC-Makati City dismissed the petition for certiorari, ruling that the MeTC-Makati City did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash. The petitioners filed this petition praying for the reversal of the RTC-Makati City decision and quashing of the information for perjury against Tomas.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the MeTC-Makati City is the proper venue and court to take cognizance of the perjury case against the petitioners.

  2. Whether the perjury case against the accused should be filed in Makati City or Pasay City.

  3. Whether there is a conflict between the rulings in the Ilusorio and Sy Tiong cases.

  4. The issue in this case is whether the venue for perjury cases under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code should be the place where the oath was taken or the place where the false document or affidavit was presented.

RULING:

  1. The MeTC-Makati City is the proper venue and the proper court to take cognizance of the perjury case against the petitioners.

  2. The perjury case should be filed in Makati City. The accused made the false declarations in the Certificate against Forum Shopping before a notary public in Makati City, and knowing that the statements were false. Therefore, the essential elements constituting the crime of perjury were committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Makati City, not Pasay City.

  3. There is a conflict between the rulings in the Ilusorio and Sy Tiong cases. In the Ilusorio case, it was ruled that the venue of the perjury charge was in the places where the verified petitions containing false statements were filed. On the other hand, in the Sy Tiong case, it was ruled that the proper venue for the perjury charges was in the place where the false statement was made. This conflict needs to be resolved by the En Banc.

  4. The venue for perjury cases under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code should be the place where the false document or affidavit was presented. The act of presenting a false document in a judicial proceeding is the act that consummates the crime of perjury. Therefore, the proper venue should be the place where the submission was made to the court or the situs of the court.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Venue is an essential element of jurisdiction in criminal cases. It determines not only the place where the criminal action is to be instituted, but also the court that has the jurisdiction to try and hear the case.

  • Laying the venue in the locus criminis is grounded on the necessity and justice of having an accused on trial in the municipality or province where witnesses and other facilities for his defense are available.

  • In criminal cases, a finding of improper venue carries jurisdictional consequences.

  • Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that 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.

  • Section 10, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure states 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.

  • The venue of action and jurisdiction over criminal cases 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.

  • The elements of perjury under Article 183 of the RPC are: (a) making a statement under oath or executing an affidavit upon a material matter, (b) making the statement or affidavit before a competent officer authorized to receive and administer oath, (c) making a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood in the statement or affidavit, and (d) the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsehood is required by law or made for a legal purpose.

  • When the jurisdiction of the court is being assailed in a criminal case on the ground of improper venue, the allegations in the complaint and information must be examined together with Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

  • The venue of the perjury charge is where the false statements were made or where they were filed, depending on the circumstances. (Ilusorio and Sy Tiong cases)

  • Perjury is the deliberate and intentional assertion of falsehood under oath, and it is complete once the false statement has been made. (Villanueva case)

  • The jurisdiction to try and hear perjury cases is determined by the location where the essential elements constituting the crime were committed. (Ilusorio and Sy Tiong cases)

  • Perjury is committed by the act of representing a false document in a judicial proceeding.

  • The venue of a perjury case should be the place where the false document or affidavit was presented.

  • The venue for criminal cases is not only in the place where the offense was committed, but also where any of its essential ingredients took place.

  • Article 183 of the RPC penalizes the making of a false affidavit and the crime of perjury committed through the making of a false affidavit is committed at the time the affiant subscribes and swears to his or her affidavit.

  • If the crime of perjury 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.

  • In cases where a written sworn statement is submitted in lieu of or as a supplement to the actual testimony, venue may either be at the place where the sworn statement is submitted or where the oath was taken, as both the taking of the oath and the submission are material ingredients of the crime committed.