Facts

• On April 13, 1998 Union Bank of the Philippines sued the spouses Eddie and Eliza Tamondong for sum of money with replevin in the RTC of Pasay City, Branch 109 (Civil Case No. 98-0717).
• On March 13, 2000 Desi Tomas, as Union Bank's authorised representative, signed a Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping for a second, identical complaint, swearing before a notary public in Makati City that the bank had commenced no other action on the same issues — though she knew Civil Case No. 98-0717 was pending in Pasay.
• On March 15, 2000 the second complaint, with that Certification attached, was filed in the MeTC of Pasay City, Branch 47 (Civil Case No. 342-00). Oath in Makati, filing in Pasay — the whole question is which city is the locus criminis.
• The Tamondongs filed a complaint-affidavit for Perjury under Article 183§ of the Revised Penal Code.
• The City Prosecutor of Makati found probable cause and filed the Information in the MeTC of Makati City, Branch 63, alleging the false oath was made on March 13, 2000, in Makati.
• Tomas moved to quash on (a) improper venue under Section 15(a), Rule 110§ — the perjury being consummated in Pasay, where the document was presented — and (b) insufficiency, the willful-falsehood element not being pleaded with specificity. The MeTC denied the motion and the reconsideration.
• Certiorari to the RTC of Makati, Branch 65 was dismissed for want of grave abuse.
• On February 28, 2012 the En Banc denied the Rule 45 petition and upheld Makati, resolving a standing conflict between Divisions.

Issue

Ruling

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the petition for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED."

Ratio

• Venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional. Unlike civil venue, which may be waived or stipulated, Section 15(a), Rule 110§ requires trial where the offence or any of its essential ingredients occurred.
• So the question becomes what the elements are. Perjury under Article 183§ requires:
  1. A statement under oath or an affidavit on a material matter.
  2. Made before a competent officer authorised to administer oaths.
  3. Containing a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood.
  4. Required by law or made for a legal purpose.
• The constitutive act is the making of the affidavit: "The criminal act is consummated when the statement containing a falsity is subscribed and sworn before a duly authorized person." Filing or presenting the affidavit is not an element — so on March 13, 2000, in Makati, every element was already complete.
• The Court then traced the conflict to a repealed statute. Act No. 1697, in force when Cañet was decided in 1915, penalised anyone who "shall use any such [false] affidavit," making presentation a material ingredient. When the Revised Penal Code took effect in 1932, Article 183§ did not carry that requirement over.
• Ilusorio (2008) therefore erred by following Cañet without noticing the statutory shift, so its holding that perjury is consummated only on filing is legally erroneous; Sy Tiong (2009) applied Article 183§ correctly. The En Banc held: "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."

Doctrine

• Perjury by false affidavit under Article 183§ is committed and consummated where the affiant subscribes and swears before a competent officer — venue lies in the territory of notarisation/execution, all elements being executed there.
• False testimony: where perjury is committed by testimony under oath in a proceeding neither criminal nor civil, venue is where the testimony is given.

• The written-statement sub-case has two venues. Where, in lieu of or supplementing oral testimony in a proceeding neither criminal nor civil, a written sworn statement is submitted, venue may be either where it was submitted or where the oath was taken — because in that administrative sub-class both the oath and the submission are constitutive ingredients.
• And the transitory-offence doctrine does not reach simple perjury: the offence is complete at the single point of subscription and oath, so it cannot be tried wherever some later "material act" happened. Read this beside Sto. Tomas v. Salac — there Congress widened the permissible venues by statute; here the Court narrowed them by reading the elements of the offence. Both are applications of the same Section 15(a): venue follows the ingredients, and only a statute can add to them.
• Note the historical trap — a citation to Cañet or Ilusorio for the filing rule is a citation to Act No. 1697, not to the Revised Penal Code.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

Facts

• April 13, 1998: Petitioner Union Bank of the Philippines (Union Bank) files its first complaint for sum of money with prayer for a writ of replevin against the spouses Eddie and Eliza Tamondong and a John Doe before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 109, docketed as Civil Case No. 98-0717.
• March 13, 2000: Petitioner Desi Tomas, as the authorized representative of Union Bank, signs and executes a Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping (Certification) accompanying a second, identical complaint against the Tamondongs for sum of money and replevin, docketed as Civil Case No. 342-00. In this Certification, Tomas declares under oath before a notary public in Makati City that Union Bank has not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in another court, despite her personal knowledge of the active pendency of Civil Case No. 98-0717 in Pasay City.
• March 15, 2000: Union Bank files the second complaint (Civil Case No. 342-00), with the false Certification attached, before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasay City, Branch 47.
• Subsequent Date (Exact Date NOT IN RECORD): Spouses Eddie and Eliza Tamondong file a complaint-affidavit for Perjury under Article 183§ of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) against Desi Tomas.
• Subsequent Date (Exact Date NOT IN RECORD): Following a preliminary investigation, the City Prosecutor of Makati City finds probable cause and files a criminal Information for Perjury under Article 183§ of the RPC against Desi Tomas before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati City, Branch 63, alleging that the false oath was made on March 13, 2000, in the City of Makati.
• Subsequent Date (Exact Date NOT IN RECORD): Petitioner Desi Tomas files a Motion to Quash the Information before the MeTC-Makati City on two grounds: (a) improper venue under Section 15(a), Rule 110§, arguing that the perjury was consummated in Pasay City where the false document was presented and filed; and (b) insufficiency of the Information, claiming that the willful-falsehood element was not alleged with specificity.
• Subsequent Date (Exact Date NOT IN RECORD): The MeTC-Makati City, Branch 63, denies the Motion to Quash, ruling that it has territorial jurisdiction because the false Certification was executed and notarized in Makati City. The MeTC subsequently denies the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.
• Subsequent Date (Exact Date NOT IN RECORD): Petitioners Union Bank and Desi Tomas file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 65, docketed as Civil Case No. 09-1038, assailing the interlocutory orders of the MeTC.
• Subsequent Date (Exact Date NOT IN RECORD): The RTC-Makati City, Branch 65, renders its Decision dismissing the petition for certiorari, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the MeTC.
• Subsequent Date (Exact Date NOT IN RECORD): Petitioners file a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
• February 28, 2012: The Supreme Court En Banc promulgates its Decision denying the petition and affirming the territorial jurisdiction and venue of the Makati City courts over the perjury prosecution.

Arguments of the Parties

• Perjury as a Transitory/Continuing Crime: Petitioners argued that perjury is a transitory or continuing offense and that the venue was improperly laid in Makati City. They contended that the crime was consummated only when the false Certification was actually submitted to and used in the Pasay City court, where the intent to assert the falsehood became manifest and material.
• The Cañet and Ilusorio Precedents: They anchored their defense on the division rulings in United States v. Cañet (30 Phil. 371) and Ilusorio v. Bildner (575 SCRA 272), which held that venue and jurisdiction for perjury lie in the place where the false document is presented and filed in court, because the presentation of the false document is the act that completes and "consummates" the offense.
• Defective Information: They asserted that the Information was fatally defective because it failed to allege the "deliberate assertion of falsehood" with sufficient factual specificity.

• Consummation at Subscription and Oath: Respondent, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), argued that the crime of perjury by making a false affidavit under Article 183§ of the RPC is fully consummated at the exact moment the affiant subscribes and swears to the document containing the deliberate falsehood before an authorized officer.
• The Sy Tiong Doctrine: They relied on the division ruling in Sy Tiong v. Sy Chim (582 SCRA 517), which held that the proper venue for perjury is the city where the false document was subscribed and sworn to, as that is the place where the deliberate false statement under oath was made.
• Sufficiency of the Information: Respondent maintained that the Information contained all the essential elements of perjury and sufficiently informed the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation.

• Stipulated Scope of Indictment: Both parties agreed that the false statements were executed in a Certificate against Forum Shopping notarized in Makati City but physically filed as an attachment to a civil complaint in Pasay City.

Issue

1. Whether the criminal Information filed against Desi Tomas was fatally defective for failing to allege the elements of perjury with sufficient particularity.
2. How the conflicting division rulings of the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Cañet (1915) and Ilusorio v. Bildner (2008) versus Sy Tiong v. Sy Chim (2009) should be reconciled.

Ruling

• MAIN ISSUE: Makati City. The Supreme Court ruled that the proper venue is the place where the false affidavit was executed, subscribed, and sworn to before the notary public, because the crime of perjury under Article 183§ of the RPC is completed and consummated the moment the oath is taken.
• SECONDARY ISSUES:
  1. NO. The Information is not defective; it sufficiently alleged all the essential elements of perjury and properly apprised the accused of the charges against her.
  2. Reconciliation of Precedents: The Court ruled that the Sy Tiong doctrine is the correct rule in accord with Article 183§ of the RPC. The Cañet and Ilusorio rulings were based on Act No. 1697, an old law that made the "use" of the false document a separate element of the offense. Since Act No. 1697 was repealed and has no counterpart under the present RPC, those older precedents are no longer controlling for perjury committed via a false affidavit.

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the petition for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED."

Ratio

1. Venue as a Substantive Jurisdictional Element: The Court began by reaffirming that in Philippine criminal law, venue is jurisdictional. Unlike in civil cases where venue is procedural and may be waived or stipulated, Section 15(a), Rule 110§ of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure mandates that the criminal action must be tried in the court of the territory where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred.
2. The Elements of Perjury under Article 183§, RPC: The Court mapped out the four essential elements of perjury under Article 183§ of the RPC:
   • (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 that statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood; and
   • (d) That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose.
3. The "Making" of an Affidavit as the Constitutive Act: Under the current text of Article 183§ of the RPC, the constitutive act of the offense is the making of an affidavit. The Court held:

   "The criminal act is consummated when the statement containing a falsity is subscribed and sworn before a duly authorized person."

   The physical filing or presentation of the false affidavit in court is not an element of the crime of perjury by making a false affidavit. Consequently, once the affiant takes the false oath before a notary public in Makati City, all the essential elements of perjury are executed and the crime is instantly consummated in Makati City.
4. Reconciliation and Historical Evolution of Perjury Laws: The En Banc meticulously traced the statutory history of perjury to explain the conflict between division rulings:
   • Act No. 1697 (The Old Law): When United States v. Cañet was decided in 1915, the prevailing law was Act No. 1697. Section 3 of Act No. 1697 specifically penalized any person who "shall use any such [false] affidavit, etc." Under that statute, the "presentation" or "use" of the affidavit in a judicial proceeding was a material ingredient of the offense.
   • The Repeal of Act No. 1697: Act No. 1697 was subsequently repealed, and when the Revised Penal Code took effect in 1932, Article 183§ of the RPC did not carry over the "use" or "presentation" requirement as an element of perjury.
   • The Error in Ilusorio (2008): The division in Ilusorio v. Bildner mistakenly relied on the Cañet ruling without recognizing that Cañet was decided under a repealed law (Act No. 1697). Because Ilusorio failed to account for this statutory shift, its holding—that perjury is consummated only upon filing—is legally erroneous.
   • The Correctness of Sy Tiong (2009): In contrast, Sy Tiong v. Sy Chim correctly applied Article 183§ of the RPC, recognizing that the crime is complete when the false statement under oath is made. The En Banc formally affirmed Sy Tiong as the controlling doctrine, stating:

   "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."

Doctrine

• The Perjury Venue Rule: Perjury committed through the execution of a false affidavit under Article 183§ of the Revised Penal Code is committed and consummated at the place where the affiant subscribes and swears to the false statement before a competent officer authorized to administer the oath (such as a notary public). The venue is properly laid in the territory of notarization/execution, as all elements of the crime are executed therein.
• The False Testimony Venue Rule: When the crime of perjury is committed through false testimony under oath in a proceeding which is neither criminal nor civil, the venue is at the place where the testimony under oath is given.

• The Written Sworn Statement Exception: If in lieu of or as a supplement to actual oral testimony in a proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, a written sworn statement is submitted, the venue may either be at the place where the sworn statement is submitted or where the oath was taken. This is because, in this specific administrative subclass of cases, both the taking of the oath and the physical submission of the statement are material, essential, and constitutive ingredients of the offense.
• Rule on Transitory Offenses: The general rule on transitory or continuing offenses (where the offense may be tried in any jurisdiction where a material act occurred) does not apply to simple perjury by false affidavit, because the offense is fully consummated at the single point of the subscription and oath.

Separate Opinions