Velez v. Victoriano
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners Jose P. Velez and Jesus P. Velez were charged with violations of Section 16 of the Coal Land Act (Act 2719, as amended by R.A. 740), specifically for allegedly making false statements in reports submitted to the Director of Mines. These reports, though prepared and sworn to in Cebu City, were addressed and submitted to the Director of Mines in Manila. The underlying dispute centers on the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Manila to hear these charges, with petitioners arguing that the offenses were committed in Cebu. 2. Procedural History: Initially, petitioners moved to quash the complaints before the fiscal, arguing lack of jurisdiction. The fiscal denied this motion, finding that while the reports were prepared in Cebu, they were submitted to the Director of Mines in Manila. After an appeal to the city fiscal was denied, petitioners filed a petition for prohibition in the Court of First Instance of Manila, which was also denied. Subsequently, informations for perjury were filed, and warrants of arrest were issued by Judge Victoriano. Petitioners sought a suspension of these warrants, which was initially granted but later re-issued. A petition for certiorari and prohibition filed with the Court of Appeals was denied, with the appellate court ruling that the offenses were transitory and that the Manila courts had jurisdiction. A motion for reconsideration was also denied. 3. The Petition: Petitioners seek review and reversal of the Court of Appeals' order denying their petition for certiorari and prohibition. They contend that respondent Miguel Cuenco lacks standing to initiate the action, as he is not the offended party. Furthermore, they argue that perjury is not a transitory offense, and therefore, jurisdiction properly lies with the Court of First Instance of Cebu, where the alleged acts were performed. The petition is brought before this Court to challenge the appellate court's determination that the offenses were transitory and that Manila courts possess jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Miguel Cuenco has the legal standing to file the action. Whether perjury, under the circumstances, is a transitory offense cognizable by the Court of First Instance of Manila. Whether the Court of Appeals committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition for certiorari and prohibition.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in holding that the offenses charged are cognizable by the Court of First Instance of Manila.
Ratio Decidendi
On the standing of respondent Miguel Cuenco: The Court found that the claim that the funds used by the petitioners belonged to the Bisaya Land Transportation Company, of which respondent Cuenco owned 23% interest, was not denied. Even if Cuenco were considered an informer, his act of giving information to the fiscal did not constitute interference with the fiscal's authority. His subsequent motion for reconsideration of the order suspending warrants of arrest was also deemed within permissible bounds, as the ultimate decision to issue warrants was based on the fiscal's and the judge's determination of the case's merits and proper venue. The participation of Miguel Cuenco did not extend beyond providing information, and the actions filed were determined solely by the fiscal of Manila and the judge before whom the complaints were lodged. Therefore, the objection regarding his standing was overruled. On the venue of the action for perjury: The Court held that the venue for the perjury charges lay with the Court of First Instance of Manila. The violated provision, Section 16 of the Coal Land Act, punishes false oaths, representations, or reports made under oath. Even if the affidavits were prepared and sworn to in Cebu City, they were addressed and submitted to the Director of Mines, whose office is located in Manila. Citing U.S. vs. Cañete, the Court reiterated that it is immaterial where the affidavit was subscribed and sworn, as long as the defendant, by means of such affidavit, knowingly submitted false evidence material to a point at issue. The gist of the offense is the intentional giving of false evidence. In this case, the affidavits were considered presented before the Director of Mines in his office in Manila, thus establishing the jurisdiction of the Manila courts. The offense was deemed committed where the false evidence was intended to have its effect, which was in Manila. On the alleged grave abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals. The CA correctly determined that the offense was transitory and that the Manila courts had jurisdiction. The CA's refusal to give due course to the petition for certiorari and prohibition was based on a sound legal premise regarding the venue of the offense. The subsequent setting aside of the preliminary injunction and denial of the motion for reconsideration were consistent with this initial determination. Therefore, the petition for review of the CA's resolution was denied.
Main Doctrine
The venue for the crime of perjury, where the false affidavit is intended to be submitted to a government office in Manila, lies with the courts of Manila, even if the affidavit was subscribed and sworn to in another province.