People v. Tomas
MODIFICATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Desi Tomas, an officer of Union Bank of the Philippines, was charged with perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code. The charge stemmed from a Certificate Against Forum Shopping she executed for a complaint filed by Union Bank against the spouses Eddie and Eliza Tamondong. In the certificate, Tomas stated that Union Bank had not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in another tribunal or agency. However, Union Bank had previously filed a similar complaint against the same spouses. Tomas was accused of willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously making untruthful statements under oath concerning a material matter. 2. Procedural History: Tomas filed a Motion to Quash the information, arguing improper venue and that the facts did not constitute an offense. She contended that the Pasay City court, where the certificate was used, should have jurisdiction, not the Makati City court where it was subscribed. She also argued that the charge lacked specificity regarding the alleged falsehood and that the allegations described perjury by false affidavit, not false testimony. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati City denied the motion, asserting jurisdiction because the certificate was notarized in Makati and finding the allegations sufficient. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the MeTC. The RTC dismissed the certiorari petition, ruling that the MeTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion, citing subsequent jurisprudence that supported the MeTC's jurisdiction based on the place of subscription and notarization of the affidavit. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, Union Bank and Desi Tomas, filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the RTC's decision. They argued that the RTC erred in dismissing their certiorari petition and that the ruling in Ilusorio v. Bildner was more applicable to their case than the Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy Chim ruling relied upon by the RTC. The petitioners contended that the essential ingredient of perjury, in their case, was the filing of the document with the court, which occurred in Pasay City, not the subscription and notarization in Makati City. The Solicitor General concurred with the petitioners' view, arguing that the criminal intent became manifest when the false statement was presented to the court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash the information for perjury; and whether all essential elements of perjury were sufficiently alleged to have been committed within Makati City. Whether the proper venue for the perjury case is Makati City, where the Certificate Against Forum Shopping was notarized, or Pasay City, where it was presented to the trial court, considering the application of jurisprudence from Ilusorio vs. Sy Tiong Shiou.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, holding that the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City is the proper venue and court to take cognizance of the perjury case against Desi Tomas.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the motion to quash and the elements of perjury: The Court found that all essential elements of perjury, including the willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood, were sufficiently alleged to have been committed within Makati City. The Court reiterated that venue is an essential element of jurisdiction in criminal cases, determining both the place of institution and the court's authority to try the case. Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure states that a criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court or territory where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred. The Court clarified that for perjury committed through the making of a false affidavit under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code, the constitutive act is the making of the affidavit, which is consummated when the statement containing a falsity is subscribed and sworn to before a duly authorized person. Therefore, the criminal act is committed at the time and place of the notarization or subscription under oath. In this case, the Certificate Against Forum Shopping was subscribed and sworn to in Makati City, making it the proper venue and conferring jurisdiction upon the MeTC-Makati City. On the proper venue and the application of jurisprudence: The Court distinguished the present case from Ilusorio v. Bildner. While Ilusorio held that venue was in the place where the false documents were filed because the intent to assert falsehood became manifest there, the Court clarified that Ilusorio was based on Act No. 1697 and General Order No. 58, which predated the current Revised Penal Code and its procedural rules. The Court emphasized that Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy Chim, a more recent ruling under the current RPC, is more applicable. In Sy Tiong, the Court held that for perjury involving a false affidavit, the venue is where the affidavit was subscribed and sworn to. The Court found that the facts in the present case, involving the making of a false affidavit (Certificate Against Forum Shopping), align more closely with the Sy Tiong ruling, where the consummation of the crime is tied to the act of swearing under oath before a competent officer. The Court also noted that the RTC correctly pointed out that the facts in Ilusorio were different, as they involved the introduction of false evidence in court, whereas here, the charge is based on the act of making the false affidavit itself.
Main Doctrine
The venue for the crime of perjury committed through the making of a false affidavit under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code is the place where the affidavit was subscribed and sworn to, as this is where all the elements of the crime are executed. The Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City has jurisdiction over the perjury case as the Certificate Against Forum Shopping was notarized in Makati City.