G.R.No.192565.February28,2012.

*
UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and DESI TOMAS,
petitioners,vs.PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,respondent.

Remedial Law Criminal Procedure Venue Jurisdiction Venue is an

essentialelementofjurisdictionincriminalcases,itdeterminesnotonlythe
place where the criminal action is to be instituted, but also the court that
hasthejurisdictiontotryandhearthecase.Venueisanessentialelement
of jurisdiction in criminal cases. It determines not only the place where the
criminalactionistobeinstituted,butalsothecourtthathasthejurisdiction
totryandhear

_______________

*ENBANC.

114

114 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People

thecase.Thereasonforthisruleistwofold.First,thejurisdictionoftrial
courts is limited to welldefined territories such that a trial court can only
hear and try cases involving crimes committed within its territorial
jurisdiction.Second, laying the venue in the locuscriminis is grounded on
thenecessityandjusticeofhavinganaccusedontrialinthemunicipalityof
provincewherewitnessesandotherfacilitiesforhisdefenseareavailable.
Same Same Same Same Section 10 and Section 15(a), Rule 110 of
the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure place the venue and
jurisdictionovercriminalcasesnotonlyinthecourtwheretheoffensewas
committed, but also where any of its essential ingredients took place.
Unlike in civil cases, a finding of improper venue in criminal cases
carries jurisdictional consequences. In determining the venue where the
criminalactionistobeinstitutedandthecourtwhichhasjurisdictionoverit,
Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
provides:(a)Subjecttoexistinglaws,thecriminalactionshallbeinstituted
and tried in the court or municipality or territory where the offense was
committedorwhereanyofitsessentialingredientsoccurred.[emphasis
ours]TheaboveprovisionshouldbereadinlightofSection10,Rule110of
the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which states: Place of
commissionoftheoffense.The complaint or information is sufficient if it
can be understood from its allegations that the offense was committed or
some of its essential ingredients occurred at some place within the
jurisdictionofthecourt,unlesstheparticularplacewhereitwascommitted
constitutesanessentialelementoftheoffensechargedorisnecessaryforits
identification.Bothprovisionscategoricallyplacethevenueandjurisdiction
overcriminalcasesnot only in the court where the offense was committed,
butalsowhereanyofitsessentialingredientstookplace.Inotherwords,the
venueofactionandofjurisdictionaredeemedsufficientlyallegedwherethe
Information states that the offense was committed or some of its essential
ingredientsoccurredataplacewithintheterritorialjurisdictionofthecourt.
Same Civil Procedure Certificate against Forum Shopping
Certificateagainstforumshoppingcanbemadeeitherbyastatementunder
oath in the complaint or initiatory pleading asserting a claim or relief it
may also be in a sworn certification annexed to the complaint or initiatory
pleading.Section5,Rule7ofthe1997Rulesof

115

VOL.667,FEBRUARY28,2012 115

UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People

Civil Procedure, as amended, contains the requirement for a Certificate

against Forum Shopping. The Certificate against Forum Shopping can be
madeeitherbyastatementunderoathinthecomplaintorinitiatorypleading
assertingaclaimorreliefitmayalsobeinasworncertificationannexedto
thecomplaintorinitiatorypleading.Inbothinstances,theaffiantisrequired
toexecuteastatementunderoathbeforeadulycommissionednotarypublic
oranycompetentpersonauthorizedtoadministeroaththat:(a)heorshehas
nottheretoforecommencedanyactionorfiledanyclaiminvolvingthesame
issues in any court, tribunal or quasijudicial agency and, to the best of his
or her knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein (b) if
there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the
present status thereof and (c) if he or she should thereafter learn that the
sameorsimilaractionorclaimhasbeenfiledorispending,heorsheshall
report 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
crimeofperjury,thematerialmatterinaCertificateagainstForumShopping
is the truth of the required declarations which is designed to guard against
litigantspursuingsimultaneousremediesindifferentfora.
Criminal Law Perjury Elements of Perjury.In this case, Tomas is
chargedwiththecrimeofperjuryunderArticle183oftheRPCformakinga
false Certificate against Forum Shopping. The elements of perjury under
Article 183 are: (a) That the accused made a statement under oath or
executed an affidavit upon a material matter. (b) That the statement or
affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and
administer oath. (c) That in the statement or affidavit, the accused made a
willfulanddeliberateassertionofafalsehood.(d)Thattheswornstatement
or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legal
purpose.(emphasisours)
Remedial Law Criminal Procedure Jurisdiction Where the
jurisdictionofthecourtisbeingassailedinacriminalcaseonthegroundof
improper venue, the allegations in the complaint and information must be
examinedtogetherwithSection15(a),Rule110ofthe2000RevisedRulesof
CriminalProcedure.Where the jurisdiction of the court is being assailed
in a criminal case on the ground of improper venue, the allegations in the
complaint and information must be examined together with Section 15(a),
Rule110ofthe2000

116

116 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. On this basis, we find that the

allegationsintheInformationsufficientlysupportafindingthatthecrimeof
perjury was committed by Tomas within the territorial jurisdiction of the
MeTCMakatiCity.Thefirstelementofthecrimeofperjury,theexecution
of the subject Certificate against Forum Shopping was alleged in the
Information to have been committed in Makati City. Likewise, the second
andfourthelements,requiringtheCertificateagainstForumShoppingtobe
under oath before a notary public, were also sufficiently alleged in the
InformationtohavebeenmadeinMakatiCity:Thatonoraboutthe13thday
ofMarch2000intheCityofMakati,MetroManila,Philippinesandwithin
thejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,didthen
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously make untruthful statements
under oath upon a material matter before a competent person authorized to
administer oath which the law requires to wit: said accused stated in the
Verification/Certification/Affidavitxxx.
Same Same Venue The venue of criminal cases is not only in the
place where the offense was committed, but also where any of its essential
ingredients took place.Procedurally, the rule on venue of criminal cases
hasbeensubjecttovariouschangesfromthetimeGeneralOrderNo.58was
replacedbyRules106to122oftheRulesofCourtonJuly1,1940.Section
14, Rule 106 of the Rules of Court provided for the rule on venue of
criminalactionsanditexpresslyincluded,aspropervenue,theplacewhere
anyoneoftheessentialingredientsofthecrimetookplace.Thischangewas
followedbythepassageofthe1964RulesofCriminalProcedure,the1985
Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure which all adopted the 1940 Rules of Criminal Procedures
expandedvenueofcriminalactions.Thus,thevenueofcriminalcasesisnot
onlyintheplacewheretheoffensewascommitted,butalsowhereanyofits
essentialingredientstookplace.
Same Same Same Criminal Law Perjury The crime of perjury
committed through the making of a false affidavit under Article 183 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC) is committed at the time the affiant subscribes
andswearstohisorheraffidavitsinceitisatthattimethatalltheelements
of the crime of perjury are executed When the crime is committed through
falsetestimonyunderoathinaproceedingthatisneithercriminalnorcivil,
venueisattheplacewhere

117

VOL.667,FEBRUARY28,2012 117

UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People

the testimony under oath is given.We hold that our ruling in Sy Tiong is
moreinaccordwithArticle183oftheRPCandSection15(a),Rule110of
the2000RevisedRulesofCriminalProcedure.Toreiteratefortheguidance
of the Bar and the Bench, the crime of perjury committed through the
makingofafalseaffidavitunderArticle183oftheRPCiscommittedatthe
timetheaffiantsubscribesandswearstohisorheraffidavitsinceitisatthat
time that all the elements of the crime of perjury are executed. When the
crime is committed through false testimony under oath in a proceeding that
isneithercriminalnorcivil,venueisattheplacewherethetestimonyunder
oathisgiven.Ifinlieuoforassupplementtotheactualtestimonymadeina
proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, a written sworn statement is
submitted, venue may either be at the place where the sworn statement is
submitted or where the oath was taken as the taking of the oath and the
submission are both material ingredients of the crime committed. In all
cases, determination of venue shall be based on the acts alleged in the
Informationtobeconstitutiveofthecrimecommitted.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Regional

TrialCourtofMakatiCity,Br.65.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
MacalinoandAssociatesforpetitioners.
TheSolicitorGeneralforrespondent.

BRION,J.:
WereviewinthisRule45petition,thedecision1oftheRegional
Trial Court, Branch 65, Makati City (RTCMakati City) in Civil
Case No. 091038. The petition seeks to reverse and set aside the
RTCMakati City decision 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
Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 63, Makati City (MeTCMakati
City)didnotcommitanygrave
 _______________
1DatedApril28,2010Rollo,pp.137143.

118

118 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People

abuseofdiscretionindenyingthemotiontoquashtheinformation
forperjuryfiledbyTomas.

TheAntecedents

TomaswaschargedincourtforperjuryunderArticle183ofthe
Revised Penal Code (RPC) for making a false narration in a
Certificate against Forum Shopping. The Information against her
reads:

That on or about the 13th day of March 2000 in the City of Makati,
Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court,theabovenamedaccused,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyand
feloniously make untruthful statements under oath upon a material matter
before a competent person authorized to administer oath which the law
requirestowit:saidaccusedstatedintheVerification/Certification/Affidavit
ofmeritofacomplaintforsumofmoneywithprayerforawritofreplevin
docketed as [Civil] Case No. 34200 of the Metropolitan Trial Court[,]
PasayCity,thattheUnionBankofthePhilippineshasnotcommencedany
other action or proceeding involving the same issues in another tribunal or
agency,accusedknowingwellthatsaidmaterialstatementwasfalsethereby
makingawillfulanddeliberateassertionoffalsehood.2

The accusation stemmed from petitioner Union Banks two (2)

complaints for sum of money with prayer for a writ of replevin
against the spouses Eddie and Eliza Tamondong and a John Doe.
Thefirstcomplaint,docketedasCivilCaseNo.980717,wasfiled
before the RTC, Branch 109, Pasay City on April 13, 1998. The
second complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 342000, was filed
onMarch15,2000andraffledtotheMeTC,Branch47,PasayCity.
Both complaints showed that Tomas executed and signed the
CertificationagainstForumShopping.Accordingly,shewascharged
ofdeliberatelyviolatingArticle183oftheRPCbyfalselydeclaring
underoathintheCertificateagainstForumShoppinginthesecond

_______________
2Id.,atp.11.

119
 VOL.667,FEBRUARY28,2012 119
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People

complaintthatshedidnotcommenceanyotheractionorproceeding
involvingthesameissueinanothertribunaloragency.
Tomas filed a Motion to Quash,3 citing two grounds. First, she
arguedthatthevenuewasimproperlylaidsinceitisthePasayCity
court(wheretheCertificateagainstForumShoppingwassubmitted
and used) and not the MeTCMakati City (where the Certificate
against Forum Shopping was subscribed) that has jurisdiction over
the perjury case. Second, she argued that the facts charged do not
constituteanoffensebecause:(a)thethirdelementofperjurythe
willfulanddeliberateassertionoffalsehoodwasnotallegedwith
particularitywithoutspecifyingwhattheotheractionorproceeding
commencedinvolvingthesameissuesinanothertribunaloragency
(b)therewasnootheractionorproceedingpendinginanothercourt
whenthesecondcomplaintwasfiledand(c)shewaschargedwith
perjury by giving false testimony while the allegations in the
Informationmakeoutperjurybymakingafalseaffidavit.
TheMeTCMakatiCitydeniedtheMotiontoQuash,rulingthat
ithasjurisdictionoverthecasesincetheCertificateagainstForum
Shopping was notarized in Makati City.4 The MeTCMakati City
alsoruledthattheallegationsintheInformationsufficientlycharged
Tomas with perjury.5 The MeTCMakati City subsequently denied
Tomasmotionforreconsideration.6
The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the RTC
MakatiCitytoannulandsetasidetheMeTCMakatiCityorderson
the ground of grave abuse of discretion. The petitioners anchored
theirpetitionontherulingsinUnited

_______________
3Id.,atpp.2937.
4OrderdatedMarch26,2009Rollo,pp.5556.
5Id.,atp.56.
6OrderdatedAugust28,2009,pp.6970.

120

120 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People

Statesv.Canet7andIlusoriov.Bildner8whichruledthatvenueand
jurisdiction should be in the place where the false document was
presented.

TheAssailedRTCDecision
 In dismissing the petition for certiorari, the RTCMakati City
held:

[I]nsofar as the petitioners stance is concerned[,] the more recent case of

[Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy] (GR Nos. 174168 & 179438, March 30, 2009)
however,reaffirmswhathasbeenthelongstandingviewonthevenuewith
respecttoperjurycases.Inthisparticularcase[,]thehighcourtreiteratedthe
rule that the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the
municipalityorterritorywheretheoffensewascommitted,orwhereanyof
itsessentialingredientsoccurred.Itwentontodeclarethatsincethesubject
document[,] the execution of which was the subject of the charge[,] was
subscribed and sworn to in Manila[,] then the court of the said territorial
jurisdictionwasthepropervenueofthecriminalaction[.]
xxxx
x x x Given the present state of jurisprudence on the matter, it is not
amiss to state that the city court of Makati City has jurisdiction to try and
decidethecaseforperjuryinasmuchasthegistofthecomplaintitselfwhich
constitute[s] the charge against the petitioner dwells solely on the act of
subscribing to a false certification. On the other hand, the charge against
theaccusedinthecaseofIlusoriov.Bildner,etal.,basedonthecomplaint
affidavits therein[,] was not simply the execution of the questioned
documents but rather the introduction of the false evidence through the
subjectdocumentsbeforethecourtofMakatiCity.9(emphasisours)

TheRTCMakatiCityruledthattheMeTCMakatiCitydidnot
commitgraveabuseofdiscretionsincetheorderdenyingtheMotion
toQuashwasbasedonjurisprudencelaterthan

_______________
730Phil.371(1915).
8G.R.Nos.17393538,December23,2008,575SCRA272.
9Rollo,pp.142143.

121

VOL.667,FEBRUARY28,2012 121
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People

Ilusorio. The RTCMakati City also observed that the facts in

Ilusorio are different from the facts of the present case. Lastly, the
RTCMakatiCityruledthattheRule65petitionwasimpropersince
thepetitionerscanlaterappealthedecisionintheprincipalcase.The
RTCMakati City subsequently denied the petitioners motion for
reconsideration.10

ThePetition
 The petitioners pray that we reverse the RTCMakati City
decisionandquashtheInformationforperjuryagainstTomas.The
petitionerscontendthattheIlusoriorulingismoreapplicabletothe
present facts than our ruling in Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy Chim.11 They
argued that the facts in Ilusorio showed that the filing of the
petitions in court containing the false statements was the essential
ingredientthatconsummatedtheperjury.InSyTiong,theperjurious
statementsweremadeinaGeneralInformationSheet(GIS)thatwas
submittedtotheSecuritiesandExchangeCommission(SEC).
Interestingly,SolicitorGeneralJoseAnselmoI.Cadizsharedthe
petitioners view. In his Manifestation and Motion in lieu of
Comment (which we hereby treat as the Comment to the petition),
the Solicitor General also relied on Ilusorioand opined that the lis
motainthecrimeofperjuryisthedeliberateorintentionalgivingof
false evidence in the court where the evidence is material. The
Solicitor General observed that the criminal intent to assert a
falsehoodunderoathonlybecamemanifestbeforetheMeTCPasay
City.

TheIssue

The case presents to us the issue of what the proper venue of

perjuryunderArticle183oftheRPCshouldbeMakati

_______________
10OrderdatedJune9,2010id.,atp.154.
11G.R.Nos.174168and179438,March30,2009,582SCRA517.

122

122 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People

City, where the Certificate against Forum Shopping was notarized,

or Pasay City, where the Certification was presented to the trial
court.

TheCourtsRuling

WedenythepetitionandholdthattheMeTCMakatiCityis
thepropervenueandthepropercourttotakecognizanceofthe
perjurycaseagainstthepetitioners.
VenueofActionandCriminalJurisdiction
Venueisanessentialelementofjurisdictionincriminalcases.It
determines not only the place where the criminal action is to be
instituted,butalsothecourtthathasthejurisdictiontotryandhear
thecase.Thereasonforthisruleistwofold.First,thejurisdiction
of trial courts is limited to welldefined territories such that a trial
courtcanonlyhearandtrycasesinvolvingcrimescommittedwithin
its territorial jurisdiction.12 Second, laying the venue in the locus
criminis is grounded on the necessity and justice of having an
accusedontrialinthemunicipalityofprovincewherewitnessesand
otherfacilitiesforhisdefenseareavailable.13
Unlikeincivilcases,afindingofimpropervenueincriminal
cases carries jurisdictional consequences. In determining the
venue where the criminal action is to be instituted and the court
which has jurisdiction over it, Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000
RevisedRulesofCriminalProcedureprovides:
(a)Subjecttoexistinglaws,thecriminalactionshallbeinstitutedandtriedinthe
courtormunicipalityorterritorywheretheoffensewascommittedorwhere
anyofitsessentialingredientsoccurred.[emphasisours]

_______________
12UnitedStatesv.Cunanan,26Phil.376(1913).
13Parulanv.Reyes,78Phil.855(1947).

123

VOL.667,FEBRUARY28,2012 123
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People

TheaboveprovisionshouldbereadinlightofSection10,Rule
110ofthe2000RevisedRulesofCriminalProcedurewhichstates:

Place of commission of the offense.The complaint or information is

sufficient if it can be understood from its allegations that the offense was
committedorsomeofitsessentialingredientsoccurredatsomeplacewithin
the jurisdiction of the court, unless the particular place where it was
committed constitutes an essential element of the offense charged or is
necessaryforitsidentification.

Both provisions categorically place the venue and jurisdiction

over criminal cases not only in the court where the offense was
committed,butalsowhereanyofitsessentialingredientstookplace.
In other words, the venue of action and of jurisdiction are deemed
sufficientlyallegedwheretheInformationstatesthattheoffensewas
committed or some of its essential ingredients occurred at a place
withintheterritorialjurisdictionofthecourt.
InformationChargingPerjury
Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended, contains the requirement for a Certificate against Forum
Shopping. The Certificate against Forum Shopping can be made
either by a statement under oath in the complaint or initiatory
pleading asserting a claim or relief it may also be in a sworn
certificationannexedtothecomplaintorinitiatorypleading.Inboth
instances, the affiant is required to execute a statement under oath
beforeadulycommissionednotarypublicoranycompetentperson
authorizedtoadministeroaththat:(a)heorshehasnottheretofore
commencedanyactionorfiledanyclaiminvolvingthesameissues
inanycourt,tribunalorquasijudicialagencyand,tothebestofhis
orherknowledge,nosuchotheractionorclaimispendingtherein
(b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete
statement of the present status thereof and (c) if he or she should
thereafterlearnthatthesameorsimilaraction

124

124 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People

orclaimhasbeenfiledorispending,heorsheshallreportthatfact
withinfivedaystherefromtothecourtwhereinhisorheraforesaid
complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. In relation to the
crimeofperjury,thematerialmatterinaCertificateagainstForum
Shoppingisthetruthoftherequireddeclarationswhichisdesigned
to guard against litigants pursuing simultaneous remedies in
differentfora.14
In this case, Tomas is charged with the crime of perjury under
Article183oftheRPCformakingafalseCertificateagainstForum
Shopping.TheelementsofperjuryunderArticle183are:
(a)Thattheaccusedmadeastatementunderoathorexecutedanaffidavitupona
materialmatter.
(b)Thatthestatementoraffidavitwasmadebeforeacompetentofficer,authorized
toreceiveandadministeroath.
(c)That in the statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate
assertionofafalsehood.
(d)Thattheswornstatementoraffidavitcontainingthefalsityisrequiredbylawor
madeforalegalpurpose.15(emphasisours)

Wherethejurisdictionofthecourtisbeingassailedinacriminal
case on the ground of improper venue, the allegations in the
complaintandinformationmustbeexaminedtogetherwithSection
15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
On this basis, we find that the allegations in the Information
sufficiently support a finding that the crime of perjury was
committedbyTomaswithintheterritorialjurisdictionoftheMeTC
MakatiCity.
The first element of the crime of perjury, the execution of the
subjectCertificateagainstForumShoppingwasallegedin

_______________
 14Torres v. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation, G.R. No. 149634,
July6,2004,433SCRA455.
15MonfortIIIv.Salvatierra,G.R.No.168301,March5,2007,517SCRA447,461.

125

VOL.667,FEBRUARY28,2012 125
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People

the Information to have been committed in Makati City. Likewise,

the second and fourth elements, requiring the Certificate against
ForumShoppingtobeunderoathbeforeanotarypublic,werealso
sufficientlyallegedintheInformationtohavebeenmadeinMakati
City:

That on or about the 13th day of March 2000 in the City of Makati,
Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court,theabovenamedaccused,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyand
feloniously make untruthful statements under oath upon a material matter
before a competent person authorized to administer oath which the law
requirestowit:saidaccusedstatedintheVerification/Certification/Affidavit
xxx.16

We also find that the third element of willful and deliberate

falsehood was also sufficiently alleged to have been committed in
Makati City, not Pasay City, as indicated in the last portion of the
Information:

[S]aidaccusedstatedintheVerification/Certification/Affidavitofmeritofa
complaint for sum of money with prayer for a writof replevin docketed as
[Civil]CaseNo.34200oftheMetropolitanTrialCourt[,]PasayCity,that
the Union Bank of the Philippines has not commenced any other action or
proceedinginvolvingthesameissuesinanothertribunaloragency,accused
knowingwellthatsaidmaterialstatementwasfalsetherebymakingawillful
anddeliberateassertionoffalsehood.17(underscoringours)

Tomas deliberate and intentional assertion of falsehood was

allegedly shown when she made the false declarations in the
CertificateagainstForumShoppingbeforeanotarypublicinMakati
City, despite her knowledge that the material statements she
subscribed and swore to were not true. Thus, Makati City is the
proper venue and MeTCMakati City is the proper court to try the
perjurycaseagainst Tomas, pursuant to Section 15(a), Rule 110 of
the2000RevisedRulesofCrimi

_______________
16Supranote2.
17Ibid.
 126

126 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People

nalProcedureasalltheessentialelementsconstitutingthecrimeof
perjurywerecommittedwithintheterritorialjurisdictionofMakati
City,notPasayCity.
ReferraltotheEnBanc
ThepresentcasewasreferredtotheEnBancprimarilytoaddress
theseemingconflictbetweenthedivisionrulingsoftheCourtinthe
Ilusoriocasethatiscitedasbasisofthispetition,andtheSy Tiong
casethatwasthebasisoftheassailedRTCMakatiCityruling.
TheCitedIlusorioandSyTiongCases
The subject matter of the perjury charge in Ilusorio involved
falsestatementscontainedinverifiedpetitionsfiled with the court
fortheissuanceofanewownersduplicatecopiesofcertificatesof
title. The verified petitions containing the false statements were
subscribedandsworntoinPasigCity,butwerefiledinMakatiCity
andTagaytayCity.Thequestionposedwas:whichcourt(PasigCity,
Makati City and/or Tagaytay City) had jurisdiction to try and hear
theperjurycases?
WeruledthatthevenuesoftheactionwereinMakatiCityand
TagaytayCity,theplaceswheretheverifiedpetitionswerefiled.The
Court reasoned out that it was only upon filing that the intent to
assertanallegedfalsehoodbecamemanifestandwherethealleged
untruthful statement found relevance or materiality. We cited as
jurisprudentialauthoritythecaseofUnitedStates.v.Caet18which
ruled:

Itisimmaterialwheretheaffidavitwassubscribedandsworn,solongasit
appearsfromtheinformationthatthedefendant,bymeansofsuchaffidavit,
swore to and knowingly submitted false evidence, material to a point at
issueinajudicialproceedingpendingintheCourtofFirstInstanceofIloilo
Province.Thegistofthe

_______________
18Supranote7,atp.378.

127

VOL.667,FEBRUARY28,2012 127
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People

offense charged is not the making of the affidavit in Manila, but the
intentional giving of false evidence in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo
Provincebymeansofsuchaffidavit.[emphasisandunderscoringdeleted]
 InSyTiong,theperjuredstatementsweremadeinaGISwhich
was subscribed and sworn to in Manila. We ruled that the proper
venue for the perjury charges was in Manila where the GIS was
subscribedandswornto.Weheldthattheperjurywasconsummated
in Manila where the false statement was made. As supporting
jurisprudence, we cited the case of Villanueva v. Secretary of
Justice19 that, in turn, cited an American case entitled U.S. v.
Norris.20WeruledinVillanuevathat

Perjury is an obstruction of justice its perpetration well may affect the

dearest concerns of the parties before a tribunal. Deliberate material
falsification under oath constitutes the crime of perjury, and the crime is
completewhenawitnessstatementhasoncebeenmade.

TheCrimeofPerjury:ABackground
TohaveabetterappreciationoftheissuefacingtheCourt,alook
at the historical background of how the crime of perjury
(specifically,Article183oftheRPC)evolvedinourjurisdiction.
TheRPCpenalizesthreeformsoffalsetestimonies.Thefirstis
false testimony for and against the defendant in a criminal case
(Articles180and181,RPC)thesecondisfalsetestimonyinacivil
case (Article 182, RPC) and the third is false testimony in other
cases (Article 183, RPC). Based on the Information filed, the
presentcaseinvolvesthe

_______________
19G.R.No.162187,November18,2005,475SCRA495,512.
20 300 U.S. 564 (1937). The perjury was based on a false testimony by the
defendantatthehearingbeforetheSenateCommitteeinNebraska.

128

128 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People

makingofanuntruthfulstatementinanaffidavitonamaterial
matter.
These RPC provisions, however, are not really the bases of the
rulingscitedbythepartiesintheirrespectivearguments.Thecited
Ilusorioruling,althoughissuedbythisCourtin2008,harkedback
to the case of Caet which was decided in 1915, i.e., before the
present RPC took effect.21 Sy Tiong, on the other hand, is a 2009
ruling that cited Villanueva, a 2005 case that in turn cited United
Statesv.Norris,a1937Americancase.Significantly,unlikeCaet,
SyTiongisentirelybasedonrulingsrenderedafterthepresentRPC
tookeffect.22
TheperjuriousactinCaetconsistedofaninformationcharging
perjury through the presentation in court of a motion
accompaniedbyafalseswornaffidavit.AtthetimetheCaetruling
was rendered, the prevailing law on perjury and the rules on
prosecution of criminal offenses were found in Section 3, Act No.
1697ofthePhilippineCommission,andinSubsection4,Section6
ofGeneralOrderNo.5823fortheproceduralaspect.
Section3ofActNo.1697reads:

Sec.3.Any person who, having taken oath before a competent

tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the Philippine
Islands authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare,
depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration,
disposition,orcertificatebyhimsubscribedistrue,willfullyandcontraryto
suchoathstatesorsubscribesanymaterialmatterwhichhedoesnotbelieve
tobetrue,isguiltyofperjury,andshallbepunishedbyafineofnotmore
thantwothousandpesosandbyimprisonmentfornotmorethanfiveyears
andshallmoreover,thereafterbeincapableofholdinganypublicofficeor

_______________
21ThePenalCodeforthePhilippineswhichtookeffectfromJuly19,1887toDecember
31,1931.
22TookeffectonJanuary1,1932.
23EntitledTheLawonCriminalProcedurewhichtookeffectonApril23,1900.

129

VOL.667,FEBRUARY28,2012 129
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People

ofgivingtestimonyinanycourtofthePhilippineIslandsuntilsuchtimeas
thejudgmentagainsthimisreversed.

Thislawwascopied,withthenecessarychanges,fromSections
539224 and 539325 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.26
Act No. 1697 was intended to make the mere execution of a false
affidavitpunishableinourjurisdiction.27
In turn, Subsection 4, Section 6 of General Order No. 58
provided that the venue shall be the court of the place where the
crimewascommitted.
As applied and interpreted by the Court in Caet, perjury was
committedbytheactofrepresentingafalsedocumentinajudicial
proceeding.28ThevenueofactionwasheldbytheCourttobeatthe
placewherethefalsedocumentwaspresentedsincethepresentation
wastheactthatconsummatedthecrime.
The annotation of Justices Aquino and GrioAquino in their
textbook on the RPC29 interestingly explains the history of the
perjuryprovisionsofthepresentRPCandtracesaswellthelinkage
between Act No. 1697 and the present Code. To quote these
authors:30
 _______________
24Everypersonwho,havingtakenanoathbeforeacompetenttribunal,officer,or
person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be
administered,thathewilltestify,declare,depose,orcertifytruly,orthatanywritten
testimony,declaration,deposition,orcertificatebyhimsubscribedistrue,willfully
andcontrarytosuchoathstatesorsubscribesanymaterialmatterwhichhedoesnot
believetobetrue,isguiltyofperjury.
25Thelawreferstosubornationofperjury.
26UnitedStatesv.Concepcion,13Phil.424(1909).
27Id.,atpp.428429.
28Peoplev.Cruz,etal.,197Phil.815112SCRA128(1982).
29RamonC.AquinoandCarolinaGrioAquino,2TheRevisedPenalCode,1997
ed.
30Id.,atpp.301302.

130

130 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People

Art.180wastakenfromart.318oftheOldPenalCodeandart.154of
Del Pans Proposed Correctional Code, while art. 181 was taken from art.
319oftheoldPenalCodeandArt.157ofDelPansProposedCorrectional
Code.Saidarts.318and319,togetherwithart.321oftheoldPenalCode,
wereimpliedlyrepealedbyAct1697,thePerjuryLaw,passedonAugust23,
1907, which in turn was expressly repealed by the Administrative Code of
1916,Act2657.InviewoftheexpressrepealofAct1697,arts.318and321
of the old Penal Code were deemed revived. However, Act 2718 expressly
revived secs. 3 and 4 of the Perjury Law. Art. 367 of the Revised Penal
CoderepealedActNos.1697and2718.
It should be noted that perjury under Acts 1697 and 2718 includes false
testimony,whereas,undertheRevisedPenalCode,falsetestimonyincludes
perjury. Our law on false testimony is of Spanish origin, but our law on
perjury (art. 183 taken from sec. 3 of Act 1697) is derived from American
statutes.The provisions of the old Penal Code on false testimony embrace
perjurycommittedincourtorinsomecontentiousproceeding,whileperjury
as defined in Act 1697 includes the making of a false affidavit. The
provisions of the Revised Penal Code on false testimony are more severe
andstrictthanthoseofAct1697onperjury.[italicsours]

With this background, it can be appreciated that Article 183 of

theRPCwhichprovides:

The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision

correccionalinitsminimumperiodshallbeimposeduponanyperson,who
knowingly makes untruthful statements and not being included in the
provisions of the next preceding articles, shall testifyunderoath, or make
anaffidavit,uponanymaterialmatterbeforeacompetentpersonauthorized
to administer an oath in cases in which the law so requires. [emphasis
suppliedemphasesours]

in fact refers to either of two punishable acts(1) falsely

testifyingunderoathinaproceedingotherthanacriminalorcivil
caseand(2)makingafalseaffidavitbeforeapersonauthorizedto
administeranoathonanymaterialmatterwherethelawrequiresan
oath.
Asabovediscussed,SyTiongdecidedunderArticle183ofthe
RPCessentiallyinvolvedperjuredstatementsmadeina

131

VOL.667,FEBRUARY28,2012 131
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People

GISthatwassubscribedandsworntoinManilaandsubmittedtothe
SECinMandaluyongCity.Thus,thecaseinvolvedthemakingofan
affidavit, not an actual testimony in a proceeding that is neither
criminal nor civil. From this perspective, the situs of the oath, i.e.,
the place where the oath was taken, is the place where the offense
wascommitted. By implication, the proper venue would have been
the City of Mandaluyongthe site of the SEChad the charge
involvedanactualtestimonymadebeforetheSEC.
Incontrast,Caetinvolvedthepresentationincourtofamotion
supportedandaccompaniedbyanaffidavitthatcontainedafalsity.
With Section 3 of Act No. 1697 as basis, the issue related to the
submissionoftheaffidavitinajudicialproceeding.Thiscameata
time when Act No. 1697 was the perjury law, and made no
distinctionbetweenjudicialandotherproceedings,andatthesame
timeseparatelypenalizedthemakingoffalsestatementsunderoath
(unlikethepresentRPCwhichseparatelydealswithfalsetestimony
incriminal,civilandotherproceedings,whileatthesametimealso
penalizingthemakingoffalseaffidavits).Understandably,thevenue
shouldbetheplacewherethesubmissionwasmadetothecourtor
the situs of the court it could not have been the place where the
affidavit was sworn to simply because this was not the offense
chargedintheInformation.
The case of Ilusorio cited the Caet case as its authority, in a
situationwheretheswornpetitionsfiledincourtfortheissuanceof
duplicatecertificatesoftitle(thatwereallegedlylost)werethecited
sworn statements to support the charge of perjury for the falsities
statedintheswornpetitions.TheCourtruledthatthepropervenue
should be the Cities of Makati and Tagaytay because it was in the
courtsofthesecitieswheretheintenttoassertanallegedfalsehood
became manifest and where the alleged untruthful statement finds
relevance or materiality in deciding the issue of whether new
ownersduplicatecopiesofthe[CertificateofCondominium
 132

132 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People

Title]and[TransferCertificatesofTitle]mayissue.31TotheCourt,
whether the perjurious statements contained in the four petitions
were subscribed and sworn in Pasig is immaterial, the gist of the
offenseofperjurybeingtheintentionalgivingoffalsestatement,32
citingCaetasauthorityforitsstatement.
The statement in Ilusorio may have partly led to the present
confusiononvenuebecauseofitsverycategoricaltenorinpointing
to the considerations to be made in the determination of venue it
leavestheimpressionthattheplacewheretheoathwastakenisnot
atallamaterialconsideration,forgettingthatArticle183oftheRPC
clearly speaks of two situations while Article 182 of the RPC
likewiseappliestofalsetestimonyincivilcases.
The Ilusorio statement would have made perfect sense had the
basisforthechargebeenArticle182oftheRPC,ontheassumption
that the petition itself constitutes a false testimony in a civil case.
TheCaetrulingwouldthenhavebeencompletelyapplicableasthe
swornstatementisusedinacivilcase,althoughnosuchdistinction
wasmadeunderCaetbecausetheapplicablelawatthetime(Act
No.1697)didnotmakeanydistinction.
IfArticle183oftheRPCweretobeused,aswhatinfactappears
intheIlusorioruling,thenonlythatportionofthearticle,referring
to the making of an affidavit, would have been applicable as the
otherportionreferstofalsetestimonyinotherproceedingswhicha
judicialpetitionfortheissuanceofanewownersduplicatecopyof
a Certificate of Condominium Title is not because it is a civil
proceeding in court. As a perjury based on the making of a false
affidavit, what assumes materiality is the site where the oath was
taken as this is the place where the oath was made, in this case,
PasigCity.

_______________
31Ilusoriov.Bildner,supranote8,atp.283.
32Id.,atp.284.

133

VOL.667,FEBRUARY28,2012 133
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People

Procedurally,theruleonvenueofcriminalcaseshasbeensubject
tovariouschangesfromthetimeGeneralOrderNo.58wasreplaced
byRules106to122oftheRulesofCourtonJuly1,1940.Section
14,Rule106oftheRulesofCourtprovidedfortheruleonvenueof
criminalactionsanditexpresslyincluded,aspropervenue,theplace
where any one of the essential ingredients of the crime took place.
This change was followed by the passage of the 1964 Rules of
CriminalProcedure,33the1985RulesofCriminalProcedure,34 and
the2000RevisedRulesofCriminalProcedurewhichalladoptedthe
1940 Rules of Criminal Procedures expanded venue of criminal
actions. Thus, the venue of criminal cases is not only in the place
wheretheoffensewascommitted,butalsowhereanyofitsessential
ingredientstookplace.
In the present case, the Certification against Forum Shopping
was made integral parts of two complaints for sum of money with
prayer for a writ of replevin against the respondent spouses Eddie
Tamondong and Eliza B. Tamondong, who, in turn, filed a
complaintaffidavitagainstTomasforviolationofArticle183ofthe
RPC.AsallegedintheInformationthatfollowed,thecriminalact
charged was for the execution by Tomas of an affidavit that
containedafalsity.
Under the circumstances, Article 183 of the RPC is indeed the
applicable provision thus, jurisdiction and venue should be
determinedonthebasisofthisarticlewhichpenalizesone

_______________
33Section14,Rule110.Placewhereactionistobeinstituted.
(a) In all criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried in the
Courtofthemunicipalityorprovincewhereintheoffensewascommittedoranyone
oftheessentialingredientsthereoftookplace.
34Section15,Rule110.Placewhereactionistobeinstituted.
(a) Subject to existing laws, in all criminal prosecutions the action shall be
instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory wherein the offense
wascommittedoranyoneoftheessentialingredientsthereoftookplace.

134

134 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People

who make[s] an affidavit, upon any material matter before a

competentpersonauthorizedtoadministeranoathincasesinwhich
the law so requires. The constitutive act of the offense is the
makingofanaffidavitthus,thecriminalactisconsummatedwhen
the statement containing a falsity is subscribed and sworn before a
dulyauthorizedperson.
Based on these considerations, we hold that our ruling in Sy
Tiong is more in accord with Article 183 of the RPC and Section
15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
ToreiteratefortheguidanceoftheBarandtheBench,thecrimeof
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
thatalltheelementsofthecrimeofperjuryareexecuted.Whenthe
crime is committed through false testimony under oath in a
proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, venue is at the place
where the testimony under oath is given. If in lieu of or as
supplement to the actual testimony made in a proceeding that is
neither criminal nor civil, a written sworn statement is submitted,
venue may either be at the place where the sworn statement is
submittedorwheretheoathwastakenasthetakingoftheoathand
thesubmissionarebothmaterialingredientsofthecrimecommitted.
In all cases, determination of venue shall be based on the acts
allegedintheInformationtobeconstitutiveofthecrimecommitted.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the
petitionforlackofmerit.Costsagainstthepetitioners.
SOORDERED.

Corona (C.J.), Carpio, Velasco, Jr., LeonardoDe Castro,

Peralta,Bersamin,Abad,Villarama,Jr.,Perez,Mendoza,Reyesand
PerlasBernabe,JJ.,concur.
DelCastillo,J.,OnOfficialLeave.
Sereno,J.,OnLeave.

135

VOL.667,FEBRUARY28,2012 135
UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.People

Petitiondenied.

Notes.Forperjurytoexist,(1)theremustbeaswornstatement
that is required by law (2) it must be made under oath before a
competent officer (3) the statement contains a deliberate assertion
of falsehood and (4) the false declaration is with regard to a
materialmatter.(Masangkayvs.People,621SCRA231[2010])
Where the act of respondent allegedly constituting perjury
consists in the statement under oath which he made in the
certificationofnonforumshopping,theexistenceofperjuryshould
bedeterminedvisvistheelementsofforumshopping.(Yuvs.Lim,
631SCRA172[2010])

o0o
Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.