Union Bank v. People
Union Bank v. People
Union Bank v. People
115
114
designed to guard against litigants pursuing simultaneous venue of criminal cases has been subject to various changes from
remedies in different fora. the time General Order No. 58 was replaced by Rules 106 to 122
Criminal Law; Perjury; Elements of Perjury.—In this case, of the Rules of Court on July 1, 1940. Section 14, Rule 106 of the
Tomas is charged with the crime of perjury under Article 183 of Rules of Court provided for the rule on venue of criminal actions
the RPC for making a false Certificate against Forum Shopping. and it expressly included, as proper venue, the place where any one
The elements of perjury under Article 183 are: (a) That the of the essential ingredients of the crime took place. This change
accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit was followed by the passage of the 1964 Rules of Criminal
upon a material matter. (b) That the statement or affidavit was Procedure, the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the 2000
made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which all adopted the 1940
administer oath. (c) That in the statement or affidavit, the Rules of Criminal Procedure’s expanded venue of criminal actions.
accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood. (d) Thus, the venue of criminal cases is not only in the place where the
That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is offense was committed, but also where any of its essential
required by law or made for a legal purpose. (emphasis ours) ingredients took place.
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Jurisdiction; Where the Same; Same; Same; Criminal Law; Perjury; The crime of
jurisdiction of the court is being assailed in a criminal case on the perjury committed through the making of a false affidavit under
ground of improper venue, the allegations in the complaint and Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is committed at the
information must be examined together with Section 15(a), Rule time the affiant subscribes and swears to his or her affidavit since
110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.—Where the it is at that time that all the elements of the crime of perjury are
jurisdiction of the court is being assailed in a criminal case on the executed; When the crime is committed through false testimony
ground of improper venue, the allegations in the complaint and under oath in a proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, venue
information must be examined together with Section 15(a), Rule is at the place where
110 of the 2000
117
116
Macalino and Associates for petitioners. Pasay City on April 13, 1998. The second complaint,
The Solicitor General for respondent. docketed as Civil Case No. 342-000, was filed on March 15,
2000 and raffled to the MeTC, Branch 47, Pasay City. Both
BRION, J.: complaints showed that Tomas executed and signed the
We review in this Rule 45 petition, the decision1 of the Certification against Forum Shopping. Accordingly, she
Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, Makati City (RTC-Makati was charged of deliberately violating Article 183 of the RPC
City) in Civil Case No. 09-1038. The petition seeks to by falsely declaring under oath in the Certificate against
reverse and set aside the RTC-Makati City decision Forum Shopping in the second
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
2 Id., at p. 11.
Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 63, Makati City (MeTC-
Makati City) did not commit any grave 119
_______________
VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 28, 2012 119
1 Dated April 28, 2010; Rollo, pp. 137-143.
Union Bank of the Philippines vs. People
118
_______________ 122
7 30 Phil. 371 (1915).
8 G.R. Nos. 173935-38, December 23, 2008, 575 SCRA 272.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f81666364bdb2572003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/21 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f81666364bdb2572003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/21
3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 667 3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 667
122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Place of commission of the offense.—The complaint or information
is sufficient if it can be understood from its allegations that the
Union Bank of the Philippines vs. People
offense was committed or some of its essential ingredients
occurred at some place within the jurisdiction of the court, unless
City, where the Certificate against Forum Shopping was the particular place where it was committed constitutes an
notarized, or Pasay City, where the Certification was essential element of the offense charged or is necessary for its
presented to the trial court. identification.
The Court’s Ruling Both provisions categorically place the venue and
jurisdiction over criminal cases not only in the court where
We deny the petition and hold that the MeTC-
the offense was committed, but also where any of its
Makati City is the proper venue and the proper
essential ingredients took place. In other words, the venue
court to take cognizance of the perjury case against
of action and of jurisdiction are deemed sufficiently alleged
the petitioners.
where the Information states that the offense was
Venue of Action and Criminal Jurisdiction
committed or some of its essential ingredients occurred at a
Venue is an essential element of jurisdiction in criminal
place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
cases. It determines not only the place where the criminal
Information Charging Perjury
action is to be instituted, but also the court that has the
Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
jurisdiction to try and hear the case. The reason for this
amended, contains the requirement for a Certificate
rule is two-fold. First, the jurisdiction of trial courts is
against Forum Shopping. The Certificate against Forum
limited to well-defined territories such that a trial court
Shopping can be made either by a statement under oath in
can only hear and try cases involving crimes committed
the complaint or initiatory pleading asserting a claim or
within its territorial jurisdiction.12 Second, laying the
relief; it may also be in a sworn certification annexed to the
venue in the locus criminis is grounded on the necessity
complaint or initiatory pleading. In both instances, the
and justice of having an accused on trial in the
affiant is required to execute a statement under oath before
municipality of province where witnesses and other
a duly commissioned notary public or any competent
facilities for his defense are available.13
person authorized to administer oath that: (a) he or she has
Unlike in civil cases, a finding of improper venue in
not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim
criminal cases carries jurisdictional consequences.
involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-
In determining the venue where the criminal action is to be
judicial agency and, to the best of his or her knowledge, no
instituted and the court which has jurisdiction over it,
such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is
Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of
such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of
Criminal Procedure provides:
the present status thereof; and (c) if he or she should
(a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and thereafter learn that the same or similar action
tried in the court or municipality or territory where the offense
124
was committed or where any of its essential ingredients
occurred. [emphasis ours]
124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
_______________ Union Bank of the Philippines vs. People
12 United States v. Cunanan, 26 Phil. 376 (1913).
13 Parulan v. Reyes, 78 Phil. 855 (1947).
or claim has been filed or is pending, he or she shall report
123 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
VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 28, 2012 123 matter in a Certificate against Forum Shopping is the
Union Bank of the Philippines vs. People truth of the required declarations which is designed to
guard against litigants pursuing simultaneous remedies in
different fora.14
The above provision should be read in light of Section
In this case, Tomas is charged with the crime of perjury
10, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
under Article 183 of the RPC for making a false Certificate
Procedure which states:
against Forum Shopping. The elements of perjury under We also find that the third element of willful and
Article 183 are: deliberate falsehood was also sufficiently alleged to have
been committed in Makati City, not Pasay City, as
(a) That the accused made a statement under oath or executed an
indicated in the last portion of the Information:
affidavit upon a material matter.
(b) That the statement or affidavit was made before a competent [S]aid accused stated in the Verification/Certification/Affidavit of
officer, authorized to receive and administer oath. merit of a complaint for sum of money with prayer for a writ of
(c) That in the statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and replevin docketed as [Civil] Case No. 342-00 of the Metropolitan
deliberate assertion of a falsehood. Trial Court[,] Pasay City, that the Union Bank of the Philippines
(d) That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is has not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the
required by law or made for a legal purpose.15 (emphasis ours) same issues in another tribunal or agency, accused knowing well
that said material statement was false thereby making a willful
Where the jurisdiction of the court is being assailed in a
and deliberate assertion of falsehood.17 (underscoring ours)
criminal case on the ground of improper venue, the
allegations in the complaint and information must be Tomas’ deliberate and intentional assertion of falsehood
examined together with Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 was allegedly shown when she made the false declarations
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. On this basis, we find in the Certificate against Forum Shopping before a notary
that the allegations in the Information sufficiently support public in Makati City, despite her knowledge that the
a finding that the crime of perjury was committed by material statements she subscribed and swore to were not
Tomas within the territorial jurisdiction of the MeTC- true. Thus, Makati City is the proper venue and MeTC-
Makati City. Makati City is the proper court to try the perjury case
The first element of the crime of perjury, the execution against Tomas, pursuant to Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the
of the subject Certificate against Forum Shopping was 2000 Revised Rules of Crimi-
alleged in
_______________
_______________ 16 Supra note 2.
14 Torres v. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation, G.R. No. 17 Ibid.
149634, July 6, 2004, 433 SCRA 455.
15 Monfort III v. Salvatierra, G.R. No. 168301, March 5, 2007, 517 126
SCRA 447, 461.
City, Makati City and/or Tagaytay City) had jurisdiction to The RPC penalizes three forms of false testimonies. The
try and hear the perjury cases? first is false testimony for and against the defendant in a
We ruled that the venues of the action were in Makati criminal case (Articles 180 and 181, RPC); the second is
City and Tagaytay City, the places where the verified false testimony in a civil case (Article 182, RPC); and the
petitions were filed. The Court reasoned out that it was third is false testimony in other cases (Article 183, RPC).
only upon filing that the intent to assert an alleged Based on the Information filed, the present case
falsehood became manifest and where the alleged involves the
untruthful statement found relevance or materiality. We
cited as jurisprudential authority the case of United States. _______________
v. Cañet18 which ruled: 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
“It is immaterial where the affidavit was subscribed and sworn, so
the defendant at the hearing before the Senate Committee in Nebraska.
long as it appears from the information that the defendant, by
means of such affidavit, “swore to” and knowingly submitted false 128
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 128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Union Bank of the Philippines vs. People
_______________
18 Supra note 7, at p. 378. making of an untruthful statement in an affidavit on
a material matter.
127
These RPC provisions, however, are not really the bases
of the rulings cited by the parties in their respective
VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 28, 2012 127 arguments. The cited Ilusorio ruling, although issued by
Union Bank of the Philippines vs. People this Court in 2008, harked back to the case of Cañet which
was decided in 1915, i.e., before the present RPC took
offense charged is not the making of the affidavit in Manila, but effect.21 Sy Tiong, on the other hand, is a 2009 ruling that
the intentional giving of false evidence in the Court of First cited Villanueva, a 2005 case that in turn cited United
Instance of Iloilo Province by means of such affidavit.” [emphasis States v. Norris, a 1937 American case. Significantly,
and underscoring deleted] unlike Cañet, Sy Tiong is entirely based on rulings
rendered after the present RPC took effect.22
In Sy Tiong, the perjured statements were made in a The perjurious act in Cañet consisted of an information
GIS which was subscribed and sworn to in Manila. We charging perjury through the presentation in court of
ruled that the proper venue for the perjury charges was in a motion accompanied by a false sworn affidavit. At the
Manila where the GIS was subscribed and sworn to. We time the Cañet ruling was rendered, the prevailing law on
held that the perjury was consummated in Manila where perjury and the rules on prosecution of criminal offenses
the false statement was made. As supporting were found in Section 3, Act No. 1697 of the Philippine
jurisprudence, we cited the case of Villanueva v. Secretary Commission, and in Subsection 4, Section 6 of General
of Justice19 that, in turn, cited an American case entitled Order No. 5823 for the procedural aspect.
U.S. v. Norris.20 We ruled in Villanueva that— Section 3 of Act No. 1697 reads:
“Perjury is an obstruction of justice; its perpetration well may “Sec. 3. Any person who, having taken oath before a
affect the dearest concerns of the parties before a tribunal. competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law
Deliberate material falsification under oath constitutes the crime of the Philippine Islands authorizes an oath to be administered,
of perjury, and the crime is complete when a witness’ statement that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any
has once been made.” written testimony, declaration, disposition, or certificate by him
subscribed is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or
The Crime of Perjury: A Background
subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be
To have a better appreciation of the issue facing the
true, is guilty of perjury, and shall be punished by a fine of not
Court, a look at the historical background of how the crime
more than two thousand pesos and by imprisonment for not more
of perjury (specifically, Article 183 of the RPC) evolved in
than five years; and shall moreover, thereafter be incapable of
our jurisdiction.
holding any public office or
GIS that was subscribed and sworn to in Manila and The statement in Ilusorio may have partly led to the
submitted to the SEC in Mandaluyong City. Thus, the case present confusion on venue because of its very categorical
involved the making of an affidavit, not an actual tenor in pointing to the considerations to be made in the
testimony in a proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil. determination of venue; it leaves the impression that the
From this perspective, the situs of the oath, i.e., the place place where the oath was taken is not at all a material
where the oath was taken, is the place where the offense was consideration, forgetting that Article 183 of the RPC clearly
committed. By implication, the proper venue would have speaks of two situations while Article 182 of the RPC
been the City of Mandaluyong—the site of the SEC—had likewise applies to false testimony in civil cases.
the charge involved an actual testimony made before the The Ilusorio statement would have made perfect sense
SEC. had the basis for the charge been Article 182 of the RPC, on
In contrast, Cañet involved the presentation in court of a the assumption that the petition itself constitutes a false
motion supported and accompanied by an affidavit that testimony in a civil case. The Cañet ruling would then have
contained a falsity. With Section 3 of Act No. 1697 as basis, been completely applicable as the sworn statement is used
the issue related to the submission of the affidavit in a in a civil case, although no such distinction was made
judicial proceeding. This came at a time when Act No. 1697 under Cañet because the applicable law at the time (Act
was the perjury law, and made no distinction between No. 1697) did not make any distinction.
judicial and other proceedings, and at the same time If Article 183 of the RPC were to be used, as what in fact
separately penalized the making of false statements under appears in the Ilusorio ruling, then only that portion of the
oath (unlike the present RPC which separately deals with article, referring to the making of an affidavit, would have
false testimony in criminal, civil and other proceedings, been applicable as the other portion refers to false
while at the same time also penalizing the making of false testimony in other proceedings which a judicial petition for
affidavits). Understandably, the venue should be the place the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy of a
where the submission was made to the court or the situs of Certificate of Condominium Title is not because it is a civil
the court; it could not have been the place where the proceeding in court. As a perjury based on the making of a
affidavit was sworn to simply because this was not the false affidavit, what assumes materiality is the site where
offense charged in the Information. the oath was taken as this is the place where the oath was
The case of Ilusorio cited the Cañet case as its authority, made, in this case, Pasig City.
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 31 Ilusorio v. Bildner, supra note 8, at p. 283.
the charge of perjury for the falsities stated in the sworn 32 Id., at p. 284.
petitions. The Court ruled that the proper venue should be
the Cities of Makati and Tagaytay because it was in the 133
courts of these cities “where the intent to assert an alleged
falsehood became manifest and where the alleged
VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 28, 2012 133
untruthful statement finds relevance or materiality in
deciding the issue of whether new owner’s duplicate copies Union Bank of the Philippines vs. People
of the [Certificate of Condominium
Procedurally, the rule on venue of criminal cases has
132
been subject to various changes from the time General
Order No. 58 was replaced by Rules 106 to 122 of the Rules
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED of Court on July 1, 1940. Section 14, Rule 106 of the Rules
of Court provided for the rule on venue of criminal actions
Union Bank of the Philippines vs. People
and it expressly included, as proper venue, the place where
any one of the essential ingredients of the crime took place.
Title] and [Transfer Certificates of Title] may issue.”31 To This change was followed by the passage of the 1964 Rules
the Court, “whether the perjurious statements contained in of Criminal Procedure,33 the 1985 Rules of Criminal
the four petitions were subscribed and sworn in Pasig is Procedure,34 and the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
immaterial, the gist of the offense of perjury being the Procedure which all adopted the 1940 Rules of Criminal
intentional giving of false statement,”32 citing Cañet as Procedure’s expanded venue of criminal actions. Thus, the
authority for its statement. venue of criminal cases is not only in the place where the
offense was committed, but also where any of its essential or as supplement to the actual testimony made in a
ingredients took place. proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, a written
In the present case, the Certification against Forum sworn statement is submitted, venue may either be at the
Shopping was made integral parts of two complaints for place where the sworn statement is submitted or where the
sum of money with prayer for a writ of replevin against the oath was taken as the taking of the oath and the
respondent spouses Eddie Tamondong and Eliza B. submission are both material ingredients of the crime
Tamondong, who, in turn, filed a complaint-affidavit committed. In all cases, determination of venue shall be
against Tomas for violation of Article 183 of the RPC. As based on the acts alleged in the Information to be
alleged in the Information that followed, the criminal act constitutive of the crime committed.
charged was for the execution by Tomas of an WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY
affidavit that contained a falsity. the petition for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioners.
Under the circumstances, Article 183 of the RPC is SO ORDERED.
indeed the applicable provision; thus, jurisdiction and
venue should be determined on the basis of this article Corona (C.J.), Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De
which penalizes one Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez,
Mendoza, Reyes and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Del Castillo, J., On Official Leave.
_______________
Sereno, J., On Leave.
33 Section 14, Rule 110. Place where action is to be instituted.—
(a) In all criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted and 135
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.— VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 28, 2012 135
(a) Subject to existing laws, in all criminal prosecutions the action Union Bank of the Philippines vs. People
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.
Petition denied.
134
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f81666364bdb2572003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/21