Union Bank of the Philippines vs. People of the Philippines

The crime of perjury committed through the making of a false affidavit under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code is consummated at the time the affiant subscribes and swears to the affidavit, placing venue in the territory where the oath was administered, as all elements of the offense are executed at that moment.

Desi Tomas, representing Union Bank of the Philippines, filed two separate complaints for sum of money with a prayer for a writ of replevin against the spouses Eddie and Eliza Tamondong. The first complaint was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City in 1998, while the second was filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City in 2000. Both complaints were accompanied by a Certification against Forum Shopping executed and signed by Tomas. In the certification accompanying the second complaint, Tomas declared under oath that Union Bank had not commenced any other action involving the same issues in another tribunal. The spouses Tamondong subsequently filed a complaint-affidavit charging Tomas with perjury, alleging that the declaration in the second certification was a deliberate assertion of falsehood given the pendency of the first case.

• The Two Complaints: Union Bank, through Tomas, filed two replevin suits against the Tamondong spouses. The first (Civil Case No. 98-0717) was lodged in RTC Pasay City in 1998; the second (Civil Case No. 342-000) in MeTC Pasay City in 2000.
• The Alleged Falsity: Tomas subscribed and swore to the Certification against Forum Shopping for the second complaint in Makati City on March 13, 2000. In it, she declared that no other action involving the same issues was pending in another tribunal.
• The Perjury Charge: The Tamondongs filed a perjury complaint against Tomas. The Information alleged that Tomas willfully and deliberately made an untruthful statement under oath by claiming no pending action existed, despite her knowledge of the first replevin case.
• Venue of the Information: The perjury Information was filed in MeTC-Makati City, the place where the subject certification was notarized, rather than in Pasay City where the civil case was pending and the certification was filed.

• Improper Venue: Petitioners contended that venue was improperly laid in Makati City, arguing that the proper venue is Pasay City where the false certification was presented and used in court.
• Gist of the Offense: Relying on Ilusorio v. Bildner and United States v. Canet, petitioners maintained that the filing of the pleading containing the false statement in court was the essential ingredient that consummated the perjury, as the intent to assert a falsehood only became manifest before the Pasay City court.

• Solicitor General's Concurrence with Petitioners: The Solicitor General, representing the People, sided with the petitioners. The OSG relied on Ilusorio and opined that the lis mota in perjury is the deliberate giving of false evidence in the court where the evidence is material, making the criminal intent manifest only before the MeTC-Pasay City.
• (Note: The RTC-Makati City's earlier ruling, which the Supreme Court ultimately affirmed, relied on Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy to justify Makati City as the proper venue based on the place of subscription.)

• Proper Venue for Perjury: Whether the proper venue for perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code is Makati City, where the false Certification against Forum Shopping was subscribed and sworn to, or Pasay City, where the certification was presented to the trial court.

• Proper Venue for Perjury: Makati City is the proper venue. The crime of perjury committed through the making of a false affidavit under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code is consummated when the affiant subscribes and swears to the affidavit, as all elements of the crime are executed at that moment. The ruling in Sy Tiong was adopted over Ilusorio, clarifying that Ilusorio erroneously applied Canet, which was decided under the old Perjury Law (Act No. 1697). Unlike Act No. 1697, Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code distinguishes between false testimony in proceedings and the making of a false affidavit. For the making of a false affidavit, the situs of the oath is the place where the offense was committed. If the charge involves false testimony in a proceeding other than criminal or civil, venue lies where the testimony is given. If a sworn statement supplements such testimony, venue may lie either where the statement is submitted or where the oath was taken, as both are material ingredients. Ultimately, venue is determined by the acts alleged in the Information to be constitutive of the crime.

• Venue as Jurisdictional in Criminal Cases — In criminal cases, venue is an essential element of jurisdiction, determining not only where the action is instituted but also which court has the power to try the case. A finding of improper venue carries jurisdictional consequences.
• Situs of Perjury under Article 183 — Article 183 penalizes two distinct acts: (1) falsely testifying under oath in a proceeding other than criminal or civil, and (2) making a false affidavit. When the crime is committed by making a false affidavit, it is consummated at the time the affiant subscribes and swears to the affidavit, making the place of notarization the proper venue. When committed by false testimony in a non-criminal/non-civil proceeding, venue is where the testimony is given. If a sworn statement supplements such testimony, venue may be where the statement is submitted or where the oath was taken. In all cases, venue is determined based on the acts alleged in the Information constituting the crime.

• "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."
• "In all cases, determination of venue shall be based on the acts alleged in the Information to be constitutive of the crime committed."

• Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy Chim, G.R. Nos. 174168 & 179438, March 30, 2009 — Followed. Held that the proper venue for perjury based on a false affidavit is where the affidavit was subscribed and sworn to, as the crime is consummated there.
• Ilusorio v. Bildner, G.R. Nos. 173935-38, December 23, 2008 — Clarified/Modified. Its holding that venue lies where the sworn petition is filed was based on a misapplication of Canet, which was decided under the old Perjury Law (Act No. 1697) that did not distinguish between judicial proceedings and the making of a false affidavit.
• United States v. Canet, 30 Phil. 371 (1915) — Distinguished. Decided under Act No. 1697, where perjury was committed by presenting a false affidavit in a judicial proceeding; thus, venue was where the document was presented. This rationale does not strictly apply to Article 183 of the RPC, which separately penalizes the making of a false affidavit.
• Villanueva v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 162187, November 18, 2005 — Cited with approval in Sy Tiong. Stated that perjury is complete when a witness's statement has once been made.

• Article 183, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes perjury for making untruthful statements or affidavits upon a material matter before a competent person authorized to administer an oath. Applied to determine that the constitutive act of the offense is the making of the affidavit, thereby fixing venue at the place where the oath was taken.
• Section 15(a), Rule 110, 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides that criminal actions shall be instituted and tried where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred. Applied to affirm that Makati City, where all elements of the perjury were executed, is the proper venue.
• Section 10, Rule 110, 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides that the information is sufficient if it can be understood that the offense or its essential ingredients occurred within the court's jurisdiction. Applied in conjunction with Section 15(a) to assess the sufficiency of the Information's venue allegations.
• Section 5, Rule 7, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Requires a Certification against Forum Shopping. Identified as the legal purpose for which the sworn statement was required, establishing the materiality of the false declaration.

Renato C. Corona (CJ), Antonio T. Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad, Martin S. Villarama Jr., Jose Portugal Perez, Jose Catral Mendoza, Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, Bienvenido L. Reyes, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe.