Union Bank v. People

G.R. No. 192565 (February 28, 2012)

Desi Tomas was charged with perjury; Makati was confirmed as the proper venue by the Supreme Court.

Facts:

Desi Tomas was charged with perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) for allegedly making false statements in a Certificate against Forum Shopping. The charge arose from her declaration in a verification/certification/affidavit of merit related to a complaint for a sum of money with a prayer for a writ of replevin, which was filed by Union Bank of the Philippines against the spouses Eddie and Eliza Tamondong. In the Certificate, Tomas stated that no other action or proceeding involving the same issues was pending in another tribunal or agency, despite knowing that this statement was false, as there was a prior complaint filed against the same parties.

Tomas filed a Motion to Quash the information, arguing that the venue was improperly laid, asserting that the proper venue should be the Pasay City court where the Certificate was used, rather than the Makati City court where it was notarized. She also contended that the information did not sufficiently allege the elements of perjury, particularly the willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood.

The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) in Makati City denied her motion, ruling that it had jurisdiction because the Certificate was notarized in Makati. The MeTC also found that the allegations in the information sufficiently charged Tomas with perjury. Tomas's subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied.

The petitioners, Union Bank and Tomas, then filed a petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, seeking to annul the MeTC's orders on the grounds of grave abuse of discretion. They cited previous rulings that indicated venue and jurisdiction should be based on where the false document was presented.

Legal Issues:

  1. What is the proper venue for the prosecution of perjury under Article 183 of the RPC?
  2. Did the MeTC-Makati City commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash the information for perjury?

Arguments:

Petitioners' Arguments:

  • The petitioners argued that the proper venue for the perjury case should be in Pasay City, where the Certificate against Forum Shopping was presented, rather than in Makati City, where it was notarized.
  • They contended that the information did not sufficiently allege the third element of perjury, which is the willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood, as it did not specify the other action or proceeding that was allegedly pending.

Respondent's Arguments:

  • The RTC-Makati City upheld the MeTC's ruling, stating that the more recent jurisprudence indicated that the venue for perjury cases is where the essential ingredients of the crime occurred, which in this case included the notarization of the Certificate in Makati City.
  • The RTC found that the allegations in the information sufficiently charged Tomas with perjury, as the essential elements were present.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit, affirming that the MeTC-Makati City was the proper venue for the perjury case. The Court emphasized that venue is a crucial element of jurisdiction in criminal cases, determining where the action should be instituted and tried. It reiterated that the criminal action should be instituted in the court where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred.

The Court analyzed the elements of perjury under Article 183 of the RPC and concluded that all essential elements were sufficiently alleged to have occurred in Makati City. The execution of the Certificate against Forum Shopping, which was the basis for the perjury charge, was made in Makati City, and thus, the MeTC had jurisdiction.

The Court also clarified the distinction between the rulings in the cited cases of Ilusorio and Sy Tiong, noting that the latter reaffirmed the principle that the crime of perjury is consummated at the time the affidavit is subscribed and sworn to. The Court emphasized that the crime of perjury committed through a false affidavit is complete when the affiant subscribes and swears to the affidavit, making the venue where the oath was taken relevant.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  • The proper venue for perjury cases under Article 183 of the RPC is where the affidavit was executed and sworn to, as this is where the essential elements of the crime are fulfilled.
  • The determination of venue in criminal cases must consider where the offense was committed and where any of its essential ingredients occurred, as outlined in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.