Unionbank v. People

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 667 7/24/21, 1:16 PM
G.R. No. 192565. February 28, 2012.*

UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and DESI TOMAS,
petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondent.
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Venue; Jurisdiction; 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.·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
_______________
* EN BANC.
114
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Union Bank of the Philippines vs. People
the case. The reason for this rule is two-fold. First, the jurisdiction
of trial courts is limited to well-defined 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
locus criminis is grounded on the necessity and justice of having an
accused on trial in the municipality of province where witnesses
and other facilities for his defense are available.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Section 10 and Section 15(a), Rule
110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure place the venue
and jurisdiction over criminal cases not only in the court where the
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ad6f3d60cf84d0f37000d00d40059004a/p/ARM253/?username=Guest Page 1 of 25
offense was 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 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 Criminal
Procedure provides: (a) Subject to 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. [emphasis ours] The above
provision should be read in light of Section 10, Rule 110 of the 2000
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which states: Place of
commission of the offense.·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.
Both provisions categorically place the 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.
In other words, 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.
Same; Civil Procedure; Certificate against Forum Shopping;
Certificate against forum shopping can be made either by a
statement under 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.·Section 5, Rule 7
of the 1997 Rules of
115
VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 28, 2012 115
Civil Procedure, as amended, contains the requirement for a

Certificate against Forum Shopping. The Certificate against Forum
Shopping can be made either by a statement under 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. In both instances, the affiant is required to
execute a statement under oath before a duly commissioned notary
public or any competent person authorized to administer oath that:
(a) he or she has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any
claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-
judicial agency and, to the best of his or her knowledge, no such
other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other
pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status
thereof; and (c) if he or she should thereafter learn that the same or
similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he or she shall
report that fact within five days therefrom to the court wherein his
or her aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. In
relation to the crime of 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.
Criminal Law; Perjury; Elements of Perjury.·In this case,
Tomas is charged with the crime of perjury under Article 183 of the
RPC for making a false Certificate against Forum Shopping. The
elements of perjury under Article 183 are: (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. (emphasis ours)
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Jurisdiction; Where 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.·Where 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
116
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 committed by Tomas within the territorial
jurisdiction of the MeTC-Makati City. The first element of the
crime of perjury, the execution of the subject Certificate against
Forum Shopping was alleged in the Information to have been
committed in Makati City. Likewise, the second and fourth
elements, requiring the Certificate against Forum Shopping to be
under oath before a notary public, were also sufficiently alleged in
the Information to have been made in Makati City: 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 x x x.
Same; Same; Venue; The venue of criminal cases is not only in
the place where the offense was committed, but also where any of its
essential ingredients took place.·Procedurally, the rule on venue of
criminal cases has been subject to various changes from the time
General Order No. 58 was replaced by Rules 106 to 122 of the Rules
of Court on July 1, 1940. Section 14, Rule 106 of the Rules of Court
provided for the rule on venue of criminal actions and it expressly
included, as proper venue, the place where any one of the essential
ingredients of the crime took place. This change was followed by the
passage of the 1964 Rules of Criminal Procedure, the 1985 Rules of
Criminal Procedure, and the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure which all adopted the 1940 Rules of Criminal ProcedureÊs
expanded venue of criminal actions. Thus, the venue of criminal
cases is not only in the place where the offense was committed, but
also where any of its essential ingredients took place.
Same; Same; Same; Criminal Law; Perjury; The crime of
perjury committed through the making of a false affidavit under
Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (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
117
VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 28, 2012 117
the testimony under oath is given.·We hold that our ruling in Sy

Tiong is more in accord with Article 183 of the RPC and Section
15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. To
reiterate for the guidance of the Bar and the Bench, 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.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Br. 65.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Macalino and Associates for petitioners.
The Solicitor General for respondent.
BRION, J.:
We review in this Rule 45 petition, the decision1 of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, Makati City (RTC-Makati
City) in Civil Case No. 09-1038. The petition seeks to
reverse and set aside the RTC-Makati 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 (MeTC-
Makati City) did not commit any grave
_______________
1 Dated April 28, 2010; Rollo, pp. 137-143.
118

abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash the

information for perjury filed by Tomas.
The Antecedents
Tomas was charged in court for perjury under Article

183 of the 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, 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.‰2
The accusation stemmed from petitioner Union BankÊs

two (2) complaints for sum of money with prayer for a writ
of replevin against the spouses Eddie and Eliza Tamondong
and a John Doe. The first complaint, docketed as Civil
Case No. 98-0717, was filed before the RTC, Branch 109,
Pasay City on April 13, 1998. The second complaint,
docketed as Civil Case No. 342-000, was filed on March 15,
2000 and raffled to the MeTC, Branch 47, Pasay City. Both
complaints showed that Tomas executed and signed the
Certification against Forum Shopping. Accordingly, she
was charged of deliberately violating Article 183 of the RPC
by falsely declaring under oath in the Certificate against
Forum Shopping in the second
_______________
2 Id., at p. 11.
119
VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 28, 2012 119

complaint that she did not commence any other action or

proceeding involving the same issue in another tribunal or
agency.
Tomas filed a Motion to Quash,3 citing two grounds.
First, she argued that the venue was improperly laid since
it is the Pasay City court (where the Certificate against
Forum Shopping was submitted and used) and not the
MeTC-Makati 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 constitute an offense because: (a) the third element of
perjury·the willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood·
was not alleged with particularity without specifying what
the other action or proceeding commenced involving the
same issues in another tribunal or agency; (b) there was no
other action or proceeding pending in another court when
the second complaint was filed; and (c) she was charged
with perjury by giving false testimony while the allegations
in the Information make out perjury by making a false
affidavit.
The MeTC-Makati City denied the Motion to Quash,
ruling that it has jurisdiction over the case since the
Certificate against Forum Shopping was notarized in
Makati City.4 The MeTC-Makati City also ruled that the

allegations in the Information sufficiently charged Tomas
with perjury.5 The MeTC-Makati City subsequently denied
TomasÊ motion for reconsideration.6
The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the
RTC-Makati City to annul and set aside the MeTC-Makati
City orders on the ground of grave abuse of discretion. The
petitioners anchored their petition on the rulings in United
_______________
3 Id., at pp. 29-37.
4 Order dated March 26, 2009; Rollo, pp. 55-56.
5 Id., at p. 56.
6 Order dated August 28, 2009, pp. 69-70.
120

States v. Canet7 and Ilusorio v. Bildner8 which ruled that

venue and jurisdiction should be in the place where the
false document was presented.
The Assailed RTC Decision
In dismissing the petition for certiorari, the RTC-Makati

City held:
„[I]nsofar as the petitionerÊs stance is concerned[,] the more recent

case of [Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy] (GR Nos. 174168 & 179438, March 30,
2009) however, reaffirms what has been the long standing view on
the venue with respect to perjury cases. In this particular case[,]
the high court reiterated the rule that 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. It went on to declare that since the subject
document[,] the execution of which was the subject of the charge[,]
was subscribed and sworn to in Manila[,] then the court of the said
territorial jurisdiction was the proper venue of the criminal action[.]
xxxx
x x x Given the present state of jurisprudence on the matter, it is
not amiss to state that the city court of Makati City has jurisdiction
to try and decide the case for perjury inasmuch as the gist of the
complaint itself which constitute[s] the charge against the
petitioner dwells solely on the act of subscribing to a false
certification. On the other hand, the charge against the accused in
the case of Ilusorio v. Bildner, et al., based on the complaint-
affidavits therein[,] was not simply the execution of the questioned
documents but rather the introduction of the false evidence through
the subject documents before the court of Makati City.‰9 (emphasis
ours)
The RTC-Makati City ruled that the MeTC-Makati City

did not commit grave abuse of discretion since the order
denying the Motion to Quash was based on jurisprudence
later than
_______________
7 30 Phil. 371 (1915).
8 G.R. Nos. 173935-38, December 23, 2008, 575 SCRA 272.
9 Rollo, pp. 142-143.
121
VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 28, 2012 121

Ilusorio. The RTC-Makati City also observed that the facts

in Ilusorio are different from the facts of the present case.
Lastly, the RTC-Makati City ruled that the Rule 65 petition
was improper since the petitioners can later appeal the
decision in the principal case. The RTC-Makati City
subsequently denied the petitionerÊs motion for
reconsideration.10
The Petition
The petitioners pray that we reverse the RTC-Makati

City decision and quash the Information for perjury against
Tomas. The petitioners contend that the Ilusorio ruling is
more applicable to the 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

ingredient that consummated the perjury. In Sy Tiong, the
perjurious statements were made in a General Information
Sheet (GIS) that was submitted to the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC).
Interestingly, Solicitor General Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz
shared the petitionersÊ 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 Ilusorio and opined that the lis mota in the crime of
perjury is the deliberate or intentional giving of false
evidence in the court where the evidence is material. The
Solicitor General observed that the criminal intent to
assert a falsehood under oath only became manifest before
the MeTC-Pasay City.
The Issue
The case presents to us the issue of what the proper

venue of perjury under Article 183 of the RPC should be·
Makati
_______________
10 Order dated June 9, 2010; id., at p. 154.
11 G.R. Nos. 174168 and 179438, March 30, 2009, 582 SCRA 517.
122

City, where the Certificate against Forum Shopping was

notarized, or Pasay City, where the Certification was
presented to the trial court.
The CourtÊs Ruling
We deny the petition and hold that the MeTC-

Makati City is the proper venue and the proper
court to take cognizance of the perjury case against
the petitioners.
Venue of Action and Criminal Jurisdiction
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. The reason for this
rule is two-fold. First, the jurisdiction of trial courts is
limited to well-defined territories such that a trial court
can only hear and try cases involving crimes committed
within its territorial jurisdiction.12 Second, laying the
venue in the locus criminis is grounded on the necessity
and justice of having an accused on trial in the
municipality of province where witnesses and other
facilities for his defense are available.13
Unlike in civil cases, a finding of improper venue in
criminal 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 Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure provides:
(a) Subject to 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. [emphasis ours]
_______________
12 United States v. Cunanan, 26 Phil. 376 (1913).
13 Parulan v. Reyes, 78 Phil. 855 (1947).
123
VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 28, 2012 123

The above provision should be read in light of Section

10, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure which states:
Place of commission of the offense.·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.
Both provisions categorically place the 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. In other words, 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.
Information Charging Perjury
Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended, contains the requirement for a Certificate
against Forum Shopping. The Certificate against Forum
Shopping can be made either by a statement under 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. In both instances, the
affiant is required to execute a statement under oath before
a duly commissioned notary public or any competent
person authorized to administer oath that: (a) he or she has
not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim
involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-
judicial agency and, to the best of his or her knowledge, no
such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is
such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of
the present status thereof; and (c) if he or she should
thereafter learn that the same or similar action
124

or claim has been filed or is pending, he or she shall report

that fact within five days therefrom to the court wherein
his or her aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has
been filed. In relation to the crime of 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.14
In this case, Tomas is charged with the crime of perjury

under Article 183 of the RPC for making a false Certificate
against Forum Shopping. The elements of perjury under
Article 183 are:
(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.15 (emphasis ours)
Where 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. On this basis, we find
that the allegations in the Information sufficiently support
a finding that the crime of perjury was committed by
Tomas within the territorial jurisdiction of the MeTC-
Makati City.
The first element of the crime of perjury, the execution of
the subject Certificate against Forum Shopping was alleged
in
_______________
14 Torres v. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation, G.R. No.
149634, July 6, 2004, 433 SCRA 455.
15 Monfort III v. Salvatierra, G.R. No. 168301, March 5, 2007, 517
SCRA 447, 461.
125
VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 28, 2012 125

the Information to have been committed in Makati City.

Likewise, the second and fourth elements, requiring the
Certificate against Forum Shopping to be under oath before
a notary public, were also sufficiently alleged in the
Information to have been made in Makati City:
„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 x x x.‰16
We also find that the third element of willful and

deliberate falsehood was also sufficiently alleged to have
been committed in Makati City, not Pasay City, as
indicated in the last portion of the Information:
[S]aid 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.17 (underscoring ours)
TomasÊ deliberate and intentional assertion of falsehood

was allegedly shown when she made the false declarations
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. Thus, Makati City is the proper venue and MeTC-
Makati City is the proper court to try the perjury case
against Tomas, pursuant to Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the
2000 Revised Rules of Crimi-
_______________
16 Supra note 2.
17 Ibid.
126

nal Procedure as all the essential elements constituting the

crime of perjury were committed within the territorial
jurisdiction of Makati City, not Pasay City.
Referral to the En Banc
The present case was referred to the En Banc primarily
to address the seeming conflict between the division rulings
of the Court in the Ilusorio case that is cited as basis of this
petition, and the Sy Tiong case that was the basis of the
assailed RTC-Makati City ruling.
The Cited Ilusorio and Sy Tiong Cases
The subject matter of the perjury charge in Ilusorio
involved false statements contained in verified petitions
filed with the court for the issuance of a new ownerÊs
duplicate copies of certificates of title. The verified petitions
containing the false statements were subscribed and sworn
to in Pasig City, but were filed in Makati City and Tagaytay
City. The question posed was: which court (Pasig City,
Makati City and/or Tagaytay City) had jurisdiction to try
and hear the perjury cases?
We ruled that the venues of the action were in Makati
City and Tagaytay City, the places where the verified
petitions were filed. The Court reasoned out that it was
only upon filing that the intent to assert an alleged
falsehood became manifest and where the alleged
untruthful statement found relevance or materiality. We
cited as jurisprudential authority the case of United States.
v. Cañet18 which ruled:
„It is immaterial where the affidavit was subscribed and sworn, so

long as it appears from the information that the defendant, by
means of such affidavit, „swore to‰ and knowingly submitted false
evidence, material to a point at issue in a judicial proceeding
pending in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo Province. The gist of
the
_______________
18 Supra note 7, at p. 378.
127
VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 28, 2012 127

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 Province by means of such affidavit.‰ [emphasis and
underscoring deleted]
In Sy Tiong, the perjured statements were made in a

GIS which was subscribed and sworn to in Manila. We
ruled that the proper venue for the perjury charges was in
Manila where the GIS was subscribed and sworn to. We
held that the perjury was consummated 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.20 We ruled in Villanueva that·
„Perjury is an obstruction of justice; its perpetration well may

affect the dearest concerns of the parties before a tribunal.
Deliberate material falsification under oath constitutes the crime of
perjury, and the crime is complete when a witnessÊ statement has
once been made.‰
The Crime of Perjury: A Background

To have a better appreciation of the issue facing the
Court, a look at the historical background of how the crime
of perjury (specifically, Article 183 of the RPC) evolved in
our jurisdiction.
The RPC penalizes three forms of false testimonies. The
first is false testimony for and against the defendant in a
criminal case (Articles 180 and 181, RPC); the second is
false testimony in a civil case (Article 182, RPC); and the
third is false testimony in other cases (Article 183, RPC).
Based on the Information filed, the present case
involves the
_______________
19 G.R. No. 162187, November 18, 2005, 475 SCRA 495, 512.
20 300 U.S. 564 (1937). The perjury was based on a false testimony by
the defendant at the hearing before the Senate Committee in Nebraska.
128
making of an untruthful statement in an affidavit on

a material matter.
These RPC provisions, however, are not really the bases
of the rulings cited by the parties in their respective
arguments. The cited Ilusorio ruling, although issued by
this Court in 2008, harked back to the case of Cañet 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
States v. Norris, a 1937 American case. Significantly, unlike
Cañet, Sy Tiong is entirely based on rulings rendered after
the present RPC took effect.22
The perjurious act in Cañet consisted of an information
charging perjury through the presentation in court of
a motion accompanied by a false sworn affidavit. At the
time the Cañet ruling was rendered, the prevailing law on
perjury and the rules on prosecution of criminal offenses
were found in Section 3, Act No. 1697 of the Philippine
Commission, and in Subsection 4, Section 6 of General
Order No. 5823 for the procedural aspect.
Section 3 of Act No. 1697 reads:
„Sec. 3. Any person who, having taken oath before a competent

tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the
Philippine Islands authorizes an oath to be administered, that he
will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written
testimony, declaration, disposition, or certificate by him subscribed
is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any
material matter which he does not believe to be true, is guilty of
perjury, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than two
thousand pesos and by imprisonment for not more than five years;
and shall moreover, thereafter be incapable of holding any public
office or
_______________
21 The Penal Code for the Philippines which took effect from July 19, 1887
to December 31, 1931.
22 Took effect on January 1, 1932.
23 Entitled „The Law on Criminal Procedure‰ which took effect on April 23,
1900.
129
VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 28, 2012 129

of giving testimony in any court of the Philippine Islands until such

time as the judgment against him is reversed.‰
This law was copied, with the necessary changes, from

Sections 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 affidavit punishable in our
jurisdiction.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 crime was committed.
As applied and interpreted by the Court in Cañet,
perjury was committed by the act of representing a false
document in a judicial proceeding.28 The venue of action
was held by the Court to be at the place where the false
document was presented since the presentation was the act
that consummated the crime.
The annotation of Justices Aquino and Griño-Aquino in
their textbook on the RPC29 interestingly explains the
history of the perjury provisions of the present RPC and
traces as well the linkage between Act No. 1697 and the
present Code. To quote these authors:30
_______________
24 Every person who, having taken an oath before a competent
tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United
States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare,
depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration,
deposition, or certificate by him subscribed is true, willfully and contrary
to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not
believe to be true, is guilty of perjury.
25 The law refers to subornation of perjury.
26 United States v. Concepcion, 13 Phil. 424 (1909).
27 Id., at pp. 428-429.
28 People v. Cruz, et al., 197 Phil. 815; 112 SCRA 128 (1982).
29 Ramon C. Aquino and Carolina Griño-Aquino, 2 The Revised Penal
Code, 1997 ed.
30 Id., at pp. 301-302.
130

„Art. 180 was taken from art. 318 of the Old Penal Code and art.
154 of Del PanÊs Proposed Correctional Code, while art. 181 was
taken from art. 319 of the old Penal Code and Art. 157 of Del PanÊs
Proposed Correctional Code. Said arts. 318 and 319, together with
art. 321 of the old Penal Code, were impliedly repealed by Act 1697,
the Perjury Law, passed on August 23, 1907, which in turn was
expressly repealed by the Administrative Code of 1916, Act 2657. In
view of the express repeal of Act 1697, arts. 318 and 321 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 Code repealed Act Nos. 1697 and 2718.
It should be noted that perjury under Acts 1697 and 2718
includes false testimony, whereas, under the Revised Penal Code,
false testimony includes 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 perjury committed in
court or in some contentious proceeding, while perjury 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 and
strict than those of Act 1697‰ on perjury.‰ [italics ours]
With this background, it can be appreciated that Article

183 of the RPC which provides:
„The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision

correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any
person, who knowingly makes untruthful statements and not being
included in the provisions of the next preceding articles, shall
testify under oath, or make an affidavit, upon any material
matter before a competent person authorized to administer an oath
in cases in which the law so requires.‰ [emphasis supplied;
emphases ours]
in fact refers to either of two punishable acts·(1) falsely
testifying under oath in a proceeding other than a criminal

or civil case; and (2) making a false affidavit before a person
authorized to administer an oath on any material matter
where the law requires an oath.
As above discussed, Sy Tiong·decided under Article 183
of the RPC·essentially involved perjured statements made
in a
131
VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 28, 2012 131

GIS that was subscribed and sworn to in Manila and

submitted to the SEC in Mandaluyong City. Thus, the case
involved the making of an 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 was
committed. By implication, the proper venue would have
been the City of Mandaluyong·the site of the SEC·had
the charge involved an actual testimony made before the
SEC.
In contrast, Cañet involved the presentation in court of a
motion supported and accompanied by an affidavit that
contained a falsity. With Section 3 of Act No. 1697 as basis,
the issue related to the submission of the affidavit in a
judicial proceeding. This came at a time when Act No. 1697
was the perjury law, and made no distinction between
judicial and other proceedings, and at the same time
separately penalized the making of false statements under
oath (unlike the present RPC which separately deals with
false testimony in criminal, civil and other proceedings,
while at the same time also penalizing the making of false
affidavits). Understandably, the venue should be the place
where the submission was made to the court or 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 charged in the Information.
The case of Ilusorio cited the Cañet case as its authority,
in a situation where the sworn petitions filed in court for
the issuance of duplicate certificates of title (that were
allegedly lost) were the cited sworn statements to support

the charge of perjury for the falsities stated in the sworn
petitions. The Court ruled that the proper venue should be
the Cities of Makati and Tagaytay because it was in the
courts of these cities „where the intent to assert an alleged
falsehood became manifest and where the alleged
untruthful statement finds relevance or materiality in
deciding the issue of whether new ownerÊs duplicate copies
of the [Certificate of Condominium
132

Title] and [Transfer Certificates of Title] may issue.‰31 To

the Court, „whether the perjurious statements contained in
the four petitions were subscribed and sworn in Pasig is
immaterial, the gist of the offense of perjury being the
intentional giving of false statement,‰32 citing Cañet as
authority for its statement.
The statement in Ilusorio may have partly led to the
present confusion on venue because of its very categorical
tenor in pointing to the considerations to be made in the
determination of venue; it leaves the impression that the
place where the oath was taken is not at all a material
consideration, forgetting that Article 183 of the RPC clearly
speaks of two situations while Article 182 of the RPC
likewise applies to false testimony in civil cases.
The Ilusorio statement would have made perfect sense
had the basis for the charge been Article 182 of the RPC, on
the assumption that the petition itself constitutes a false
testimony in a civil case. The Cañet ruling would then have
been completely applicable as the sworn statement is used
in a civil case, although no such distinction was made
under Cañet because the applicable law at the time (Act
No. 1697) did not make any distinction.
If Article 183 of the RPC were to be used, as what in fact
appears in the Ilusorio ruling, then only that portion of the
article, referring to the making of an affidavit, would have
been applicable as the other portion refers to false
testimony in other proceedings which a judicial petition for
the issuance of a new ownerÊs duplicate copy of 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, Pasig City.
_______________
31 Ilusorio v. Bildner, supra note 8, at p. 283.
32 Id., at p. 284.
133
VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 28, 2012 133

Procedurally, the rule on venue of criminal cases has

been subject to various changes from the time General
Order No. 58 was replaced by Rules 106 to 122 of the Rules
of Court on July 1, 1940. Section 14, Rule 106 of the Rules
of Court provided for the rule on venue of criminal actions
and it expressly included, as proper venue, the place where
any one of the essential ingredients of the crime took place.
This change was followed by the passage of the 1964 Rules
of Criminal Procedure,33 the 1985 Rules of Criminal
Procedure,34 and the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure which all adopted the 1940 Rules of Criminal
ProcedureÊs expanded venue of criminal actions. Thus, the
venue of criminal cases is not only in the place where the
offense was committed, but also where any of its essential
ingredients took place.
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 complaint-affidavit
against Tomas for violation of Article 183 of the RPC. As
alleged in the Information that followed, the criminal act
charged was for the execution by Tomas of an
affidavit that contained a falsity.
Under the circumstances, Article 183 of the RPC is
indeed the applicable provision; thus, jurisdiction and

venue should be determined on the basis of this article
which penalizes one
_______________
33 Section 14, Rule 110. Place where action is to be instituted.·
(a) In all criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried
in the Court of the municipality or province wherein the offense was
committed or any one of the essential ingredients thereof took place.
34 Section 15, Rule 110. Place where action is to be instituted.·
(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 was committed or any one of the essential
ingredients thereof took place.
134

who „make[s] an affidavit, upon any material matter before

a competent person authorized to administer an oath in
cases in which the law so requires.‰ The constitutive act
of the offense is the making of an affidavit; thus, the
criminal act is consummated when the statement
containing a falsity is subscribed and sworn before a duly
authorized person.
Based on these considerations, we hold that our ruling
in Sy Tiong is more in accord with Article 183 of the RPC
and Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure. To reiterate for the guidance of the
Bar and the Bench, 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.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY
the petition for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Corona (C.J.), Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro,

Peralta, Bersamin, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza,
Reyes and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Del Castillo, J., On Official Leave.
Sereno, J., On Leave.
135
VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 28, 2012 135

Petition denied.
Notes.·For perjury to exist, (1) there must be a sworn

statement 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 material matter.
(Masangkay vs. People, 621 SCRA 231 [2010])
Where the act of respondent allegedly constituting
perjury consists in the statement under oath which he
made in the certification of non-forum shopping, the
existence of perjury should be determined vis-à-vis the
elements of forum shopping. (Yu vs. Lim, 631 SCRA 172
[2010])
··o0o··
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Unionbank v. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unionbank v. People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unionbank v. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 667 7/24/21, 1:16 PM

G.R. No. 192565. February 28, 2012.*

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Venue; Jurisdiction; Venue

114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Union Bank of the Philippines vs. People

offense was committed, but also where any of its essential

VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 28, 2012 115

Union Bank of the Philippines vs. People

Civil Procedure, as amended, contains the requirement for a

complaint or initiatory pleading asserting a claim or relief; it may

116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Union Bank of the Philippines vs. People

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. On this basis, we find that

When the crime is committed through false testimony under oath in

VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 28, 2012 117

Union Bank of the Philippines vs. People

the testimony under oath is given.·We hold that our ruling in Sy

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Bank of the Philippines (Union Bank) and Desi Tomas

118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash the

Tomas was charged in court for perjury under Article

„That on or about the 13th day of March 2000 in the City of

The accusation stemmed from petitioner Union BankÊs

VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 28, 2012 119

complaint that she did not commence any other action or

Makati City.4 The MeTC-Makati City also ruled that the

120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

States v. Canet7 and Ilusorio v. Bildner8 which ruled that

The Assailed RTC Decision

In dismissing the petition for certiorari, the RTC-Makati

„[I]nsofar as the petitionerÊs stance is concerned[,] the more recent

The RTC-Makati City ruled that the MeTC-Makati City

VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 28, 2012 121

Ilusorio. The RTC-Makati City also observed that the facts

The petitioners pray that we reverse the RTC-Makati

containing the false statements was the essential

The case presents to us the issue of what the proper

122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

City, where the Certificate against Forum Shopping was

The CourtÊs Ruling

We deny the petition and hold that the MeTC-

Venue is an essential element of jurisdiction in criminal

VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 28, 2012 123

The above provision should be read in light of Section

Place of commission of the offense.·The complaint or information is

element of the offense charged or is necessary for its identification.

Both provisions categorically place the venue and

124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

or claim has been filed or is pending, he or she shall report

In this case, Tomas is charged with the crime of perjury

Where the jurisdiction of the court is being assailed in a

VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 28, 2012 125

the Information to have been committed in Makati City.

Information to have been made in Makati City:

„That on or about the 13th day of March 2000 in the City of

We also find that the third element of willful and

[S]aid accused stated in the Verification/Certification/Affidavit of

TomasÊ deliberate and intentional assertion of falsehood

126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED