Ilusorio v. Bildner
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents Ma. Erlinda Bildner and Lily Raqueño were charged with perjury by petitioner Erlinda K. Ilusorio before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasig City. The charges stemmed from their filing, on behalf of Lakeridge Development Corp. (LDC), of a petition in the Makati City Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy of Condominium Certificate of Title (CCT) No. 21578. The Information alleged that the respondents falsely claimed the title was lost, when in fact it was in the possession of the petitioner, with the intent to obtain a new copy to the petitioner's prejudice. Similarly, four other Informations for perjury were filed against respondents Sylvia Ilusorio, Ma. Cristina Ilusorio, and Aurora Montemayor before the Pasig City MeTC, arising from their filing of petitions for new owner's duplicate copies of Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. 17010, 17011, and 17012 in the Tagaytay City RTC, also alleging the titles were lost. Procedural History: The MeTC of Pasig City, after consolidating the four Informations, initially found venue to be properly laid. However, it granted the respondents' motions to quash, ruling that the statements made in the petitions filed before the RTCs were absolutely privileged, citing Flordelis v. Judge Himalalaon and People v. Aquino. The Pasig City RTC affirmed this decision upon petitioner's appeal. After the denial of her motion for reconsideration, the petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari. The Petition: The petitioner seeks review of the lower courts' decisions, arguing that the cited cases of Flordelis and Aquino were misapplied. She contends that statements made in pleadings, even if perjurious or false, are not absolutely privileged and can be subject to criminal prosecution, particularly in cases of perjury. The petitioner asserts that People v. Aquino is inapplicable as it involved a libel case, and Flordelis v. Himalalaon is also distinguishable because the statements in that case were not required to be under oath, unlike the petitions in the present case. The respondents, in their comment, initially raised a procedural issue regarding the hierarchy of courts but on the merits, reiterated the lower courts' findings on the privileged nature of the statements and the withdrawal of the original petitions.
Issue(s)
Whether the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City has jurisdiction over the Informations for perjury against the respondents. Whether statements made in pleadings filed before a court are absolutely privileged and thus not subject to criminal prosecution for perjury.
Ruling
The petition is denied on the ground that the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig has no jurisdiction over the Informations for perjury against respondents because venue was improperly laid.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Venue and Jurisdiction: The Court held that the venue for a criminal action for perjury must be instituted and tried in the municipality or territory where the deliberate making of an untruthful statement upon any matter was made. The Informations alleged that the offenses were committed in Pasig City, where the petitions were notarized. However, the Complaint-Affidavits, which initiated the criminal actions, clearly indicated that the verified petitions were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City and the Regional Trial Court of Tagaytay City, respectively. The purported perjurious petitions quoted in the Informations themselves indicated that, with respect to the CCT of the Registry of Deeds of Makati and the TCTs of the Registry of Deeds of Tagaytay, the venue of the criminal action arising therefrom is in Makati and Tagaytay, respectively. The allegation in each of the four Informations that perjury was committed in Pasig is neither controlling nor sufficient to show that the Pasig MeTC has jurisdiction over them. The gist of the offense of perjury is the intentional giving of a false statement, and it is immaterial where the affidavit was subscribed and sworn, so long as it appears from the information that the defendant knowingly submitted false evidence, material to a point at issue in a judicial proceeding. Therefore, the venue of the criminal action should have been in Makati and Tagaytay, 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 owner’s duplicate copies of the CCT and TCTs may issue. Consequently, the Pasig MeTC has no jurisdiction over the Informations. On the Issue of Privileged Pleadings: Although the Court denied the petition on the ground of improper venue, it addressed the issue raised by the petitioner regarding the absolute privilege of statements made in pleadings. The Court clarified that its rulings in Sison and Aquino involved libel cases and the concept of absolute privilege has an established technical meaning in connection with civil actions for libel and slander. The Flordelis case was also distinguished, as the answer to the complaint in that case did not need to be under oath, thus an element of perjury was absent. In the present case, the respondents’ petitions, which were the bases of the perjury charges, are required by law to be under oath. Therefore, the MeTC and RTC misappreciated the rulings in Flordelis and Aquino by holding that the statements in the respondents’ petitions were absolutely privileged and not subject to criminal prosecution for perjury.
Main Doctrine
The venue for a criminal action for perjury must be instituted and tried in the municipality or territory where the deliberate making of an untruthful statement upon any matter was made, which is where the alleged untruthful statement finds relevance or materiality in deciding the issue.