Case Title : UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and DESI TOMAS,

petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.Case Nature :

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Makati City, Br. 65.
Syllabi Class : Remedial Law|Criminal Procedure|Venue|Criminal
Law|Perjury

FACTS:
Desi Tomas was charged with perjury for making a false narration in a Certificate against Forum
Shopping. It was alleged that Tomas stated under oath that the Union Bank of the Philippines has
not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in another tribunal or
agency aside from that which is filed before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City for the
collection of sum of money with prayer of writ of replevin filed against Eddie and Eliza Tamondong
and a John Doe.
Tomas filed a motion to quash arguing that the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City does not
have jurisdiction over the case as, though it was notarized in Makati, the Certificate against Forum
Shopping was used or submitted before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City has jurisdiction over the case at bar.

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Venue; Jurisdiction; Venue is an essential element

of jurisdiction in criminal cases, it determines not only the place where the criminal action is
to be instituted, but also the court that has the jurisdiction to try and hear the case.—Venue
is an essential element of jurisdiction in criminal cases. It determines not only the place
where the criminal action is to be instituted, but also the court that has the jurisdiction to
try and hear the case. The reason for this rule is two-fold. First, the jurisdiction of trial courts
is limited to well-defined 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 locus criminis is grounded on the necessity and justice of having an accused on trial in
the municipality of province where witnesses and other facilities for his defense are available.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Section 10 and Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure place the venue and jurisdiction over criminal cases not only in
the court where the offense was 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 criminal action is to be
instituted and the court which has jurisdiction over it, Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: (a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal
action shall be instituted and tried in the court or municipality or territory where the
offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred. [emphasis
ours] The above provision should be read in light of Section 10, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure which states: Place of commission of the offense.—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 jurisdiction
of the court, unless the particular place where it was committed constitutes an essential
element of the offense charged or is necessary for its identification. Both provisions
categorically place the venue and jurisdiction over criminal cases not only in the court where
the offense was committed, but also where any of its essential ingredients took place. In other
words, the venue of action and of jurisdiction are deemed sufficiently alleged where the
Information states that the offense was committed or some of its essential ingredients
occurred at a place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
Same; Civil Procedure; Certificate against Forum Shopping; 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 certification annexed to the complaint or
initiatory pleading.—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 certification annexed to the
complaint or initiatory pleading. In both instances, the affiant is required to execute a
statement under oath before a duly commissioned notary public or any competent person
authorized to administer oath that: (a) he or she has not theretofore commenced any action
or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial 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 same or similar action or claim
has been filed or is pending, he or she shall 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 crime of perjury, the material matter in a Certificate against Forum Shopping is the
truth of the required declarations which is designed to guard against litigants pursuing
simultaneous remedies in different fora.
Criminal Law; Perjury; Elements of Perjury.—In this case, Tomas is charged with the
crime of perjury under Article 183 of the RPC for making a 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 willful and
deliberate assertion of a falsehood. (d) That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the
falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose. (emphasis ours)
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Jurisdiction; 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), Rule 110 of the
2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.—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), 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 committed by Tomas within the
territorial jurisdiction of the MeTC-Makati City. The first element of the crime of perjury,
the execution of the subject Certificate against Forum Shopping was alleged in the
Information to have been committed in Makati City. Likewise, the second and fourth
elements, requiring the Certificate against Forum Shopping to be under oath before a notary
public, were also sufficiently alleged in the Information to have been made in Makati 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, the above-named accused, did then 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/Affidavit x x x.
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 has been subject to various changes from the time General
Order No. 58 was replaced by Rules 106 to 122 of the Rules of Court on July 1, 1940. Section
14, Rule 106 of the Rules of Court provided for the rule on venue of criminal actions and it
expressly included, as proper venue, the place where any one of the essential ingredients of the
crime took place. This change was followed by the passage of the 1964 Rules of Criminal
Procedure, the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure which all adopted the 1940 Rules of Criminal Procedure’s expanded venue of
criminal actions. Thus, 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.
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 and swears to his or her affidavit since it is at that 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 is neither criminal nor civil, venue is at the
place where the testimony under oath is given.—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. To reiterate for the guidance of the Bar and the Bench, 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. When the 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 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 Information to be constitutive of the crime
committed.

Case Title : SY TIONG SHIOU, JUANITA TAN SY, JOLIE ROSS TAN, ROMER
TAN, CHARLIE TAN, and JESSIE JAMES TAN, petitioners, vs. SY CHIM and
FELICIDAD CHAN SY, respondents., SY CHIM and FELICIDAD CHAN SY,
petitioners, vs. SY TIONG SHIOU and JUANITA TAN, respondents.
Syllabi Class :

FACTS:
February 3 2003, Juanita Tan, corporate treasurer of Sy Siy Ho & Sons, Inc. (the corporation), a family
corporation doing business under the name and style Guan Yiac Hardware, submitted a letter to the
corporation’s Board of Directors (Board) statingthat Felicidad Chan Sy did not make cash deposits to any
of the corporation’s banks from 1 November 2001 to 31 January 2003, thus the total bank remittances
for the past years were less than reflected in the corporate financial statements, accounting books and
records. Finally, Juanita Tan sought to be free from any responsibility over all corporate funds.

April 5, 2003, Banaria, Banaria & Company in its report, the accounting firm attributed to the Spouses Sy
P67,117,230.30 as unaccounted receipts and disbursements from 1994 to 2002.

April 15, 2003, a demand letter was subsequently served on the Spouses Sy. On the same date, the
children of the Spouses Sy allegedly stole from the corporation cash, postdated checks and other
important documents. After the incident, the Spouses Sy allegedly transferred residence and ceased
reporting to the corporation. Thereupon, the corporation filed a criminal complaint for robbery against
the Spouses Sy before the City Prosecutor’s Office of Manila.

July 1, 2003, the corporation, through Romer S. Tan, filed its Amended Complaint for Accounting and
Damages against the Spouses Sy before the RTC Manila, praying for a complete and true accounting of
all the amounts paid to, received and earned by the company since 1993 and for the restitution of the
said amount.The complaint also prayed for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and or preliminary
injunction to restrain Sy Chim from calling a stockholders’ meeting on the ground of lack of authority.

September 9, 2003, the Spouses Sy filed their Motion for Leave to File Third-Party Complaint, praying
that their attached Third Party Complaint be allowed and admitted against Sy Tiong Shiou and his
spouse. In the said third-party complaint, the Spouses Sy accused Sy Tiong Shiou and Juanita Tan as
directly liable for the corporation’s claim for misappropriating corporate funds.

October 8, 2003, the trial court granted the motion for leave to file the third-party complaint, and
forthwith directed the issuance of summons against Sy Tiong Shiou and Juanita Tan.

January 16, 2004, their counsel allegedly discovered that Sy Tiong Shiou and Juanita Tan were not
furnished with the copies of several pleadings, as well as a court order, which resulted in their having
been declared in default for failure to file their answer to the third-party complaint; thus, they instead
filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.

May 26, 2004, the Court of Appeals granted the petition of Sy Tiong Shiou and Juanita Tan.61The
appellate court declared that a third-party complaint is not allowed under the Interim Rules of
Procedure Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies Under R.A. No. 8799 (Interim Rules).

Criminal Procedure; Preliminary Investigation; Policy of Non-Interference; A

preliminary proceeding is not a quasi-judicial function and that the Department of Justice
(DOJ) is not a quasi-judicial agency exercising a quasi-judicial function when it reviews the
findings of a public prosecutor regarding the presence of probable cause; The Supreme Court
has adopted a policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations and
leaves to the investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion in the determination of
what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish probable cause for the filing of
information against the supposed offender, except when there is grave abuse of discretion.—A
preliminary proceeding is not a quasi-judicial function and that the DOJ is not a quasi-
judicial agency exercising a quasi-judicial function when it reviews the findings of a public
prosecutor regarding the presence of probable cause. Moreover, it is settled that the
preliminary investigation proper, i.e., the determination of whether there is reasonable
ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and should be subjected to
the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial, is the function of the prosecution. This Court
has adopted a policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations and
leaves to the investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion in the determination of
what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish probable cause for the filing of
information against the supposed offender. As in every rule, however, there are settled
exceptions. Hence, the principle of non-interference does not apply when there is grave abuse
of discretion which would authorize the aggrieved person to file a petition for certiorari and
prohibition under Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Same; Same; Prejudicial Questions; Elements; Words and Phrases; A prejudicial
question comes into play generally in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action
are both pending and there exists in the former an issue which must be preemptively resolved
before the criminal action may proceed since howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is
resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the
criminal case.—A prejudicial question comes into play generally in a situation where a civil
action and a criminal action are both pending and there exists in the former an issue which
must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed since howsoever the
issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt
or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. The reason behind the principle of prejudicial
question is to avoid two conflicting decisions. It has two essential elements: (a) the civil action
involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and
(b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.
Same; Same; In order that probable cause to file a criminal case may be arrived at, or in
order to engender the well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, the elements of the
crime charged should be present.—The term probable cause does not mean ‘actual and
positive cause’ nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and
reasonable belief. Thus a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether
there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the
act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. Precisely, there is a trial for
the reception of evidence of the prosecution in support of the charge. In order that probable
cause to file a criminal case may be arrived at, or in order to engender the well-founded belief
that a crime has been committed, the elements of the crime charged should be present. This
is based on the principle that every crime is defined by its elements, without which there
should be–at the most–no criminal offense.
Same; Same; Corporation Law; Violation of Section 74 of the Corporation Code;
Elements.—In the recent case of Ang-Abaya, et al. v. Ang, et al. (573 SCRA 129 [2008]), the
Court had the occasion to enumerate the requisites before the penal provision under Section
144 of the Corporation Code may be applied in a case of violation of a stockholder or member’s
right to inspect the corporate books/records as provided for under Section 74 of the
Corporation Code. The elements of the offense, as laid down in the case, are: First. A director,
trustee, stockholder or member has made a prior demand in writing for a copy of excerpts
from the corporation’s records or minutes; Second. Any officer or agent of the concerned
corporation shall refuse to allow the said director, trustee, stockholder or member of the
corporation to examine and copy said excerpts; Third. If such refusal is made pursuant to a
resolution or order of the board of directors or trustees, the liability under this section for
such action shall be imposed upon the directors or trustees who voted for such refusal;
and, Fourth. Where the officer or agent of the corporation sets up the defense that the person
demanding to examine and copy excerpts from the corporation’s records and minutes has
improperly used any information secured through any prior examination of the records or
minutes of such corporation or of any other corporation, or was not acting in good faith or for
a legitimate purpose in making his demand, the contrary must be shown or proved.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Burden of Proof; In a criminal complaint for violation of
Section 74 of the Corporation Code, the defense of improper use or motive is in the nature of a
justifying circumstance that would exonerate those who raise and are able to prove the same—
where the corporation denies inspection on the ground of improper motive or purpose, the
burden of proof is taken from the shareholder and placed on the corporation.—In a criminal
complaint for violation of Section 74 of the Corporation Code, the defense of improper use or
motive is in the nature of a justifying circumstance that would exonerate those who raise and
are able to prove the same. Accordingly, where the corporation denies inspection on the
ground of improper motive or purpose, the burden of proof is taken from the shareholder and
placed on the corporation. However, where no such improper motive or purpose is alleged,
and even though so alleged, it is not proved by the corporation, then there is no valid reason
to deny the requested inspection.
Same; Same; Falsification of Public Documents; Elements.—The Spouses Sy charge Sy
Tiong Shiou with the offense of falsification of public documents under Article 171, paragraph
4; and/or perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The elements of
falsification of public documents through an untruthful narration of facts are: (a) the offender
makes in a document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (b) the offender has a
legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated; (c) the facts narrated by the
offender are absolutely false; and (d) the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was
made with the wrongful intent to injure a third person.
Same; Same; Perjury; Elements.—The elements of perjury 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 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.
Same; Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction; The doctrine of primary jurisdiction no longer
precludes the simultaneous filing of the criminal case with the corporate/civil case.—The
Court agrees with the Court of Appeals’ holding, citing the case of Fabia v. Court of
Appeals 388 SCRA 574 [2002]), that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction no longer precludes
the simultaneous filing of the criminal case with the corporate/civil case. Moreover, the Court
finds that the City of Manila is the proper venue for the perjury charges, the GIS having been
subscribed and sworn to in the said place. Under Section 10(a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules
of Court, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or
territory where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred.
In Villanueva v. Secretary of Justice (475 SCRA 495 [2005]), the Court held that the felony is
consummated when the false statement is made. Thus in this case, it was alleged that the
perjury was committed when Sy Tiong Shiou subscribed and sworn to the GIS in the City of
Manila, thus, following Section 10(a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court, the City of
Manila is the proper venue for the offense.
 Corporation Law; Inter-Corporate Controversies; Statutory Construction; There is a
conflict between Rule 1, Section 8 and Rule 2, Section 2 of the Interim Rules of Procedure for
Inter-Corporate Controversies—while a third-party complaint is not included in the
allowed pleadings, neither is it among the prohibited ones; The conflict may be resolved by
following the well-entrenched rule in statutory construction, that every part of the statute must
be interpreted with reference to the context, i.e., that every part of the statute must be
considered together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole
enactment.—The conflicting provisions of the Interim Rules of Procedure for Inter-Corporate
Controversies read: x x x There is a conflict, for while a third-party complaint is not included
in the allowed pleadings, neither is it among the prohibited ones. Nevertheless, this conflict
may be resolved by following the well-entrenched rule in statutory construction, that every
part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, i.e., that every part of
the statute must be considered together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the
general intent of the whole enactment. Statutes, including rules, should be construed in the
light of the object to be achieved and the evil or mischief to be suppressed and they should be
given such construction as will advance the object, suppress the mischief and secure the
benefits intended. A statute should therefore be read with reference to its leading idea, and
its general purpose and intention should be gathered from the whole act, and this
predominant purpose will prevail over the literal import of particular terms or clauses, if
plainly apparent, operating as a limitation upon some and as a reason for expanding the
signification of others, so that the interpretation may accord with the spirit of the entire act,
and so that the policy and object of the statute as a whole may be made effectual and operative
to the widest possible extent. Otherwise stated, the spirit, rather than the letter of a law
determines its construction; hence, a statute, as in the rules in this case, must be read
according to its spirit and intent.
Same; Same; Civil Procedure; Pleadings and Practice; Third-Party Complaint; A third-
party complaint is not, and should not be prohibited in controversies governed by the Interim
Rules of Procedure for Inter-Corporate Controversies; Jurisprudence is consistent in declaring
that the purpose of a third-party complaint is to avoid circuitry of action and unnecessary
proliferation of law suits and of disposing expeditiously in one litigation all the matters
arising from one particular set of facts—the summary nature of the proceedings governed by
the Interim Rules, and the allowance of the filing of third-party complaints is premised on one
objective, which is expeditious disposition of cases.—A third-party complaint is a claim that a
defending party may, with leave of court, file against a person not a party to the action, called
the third-party defendant, for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in
respect of his opponent’s claim. It is actually a complaint independent of, and separate and
distinct from the plaintiff’s complaint. In fact, were it not for Rule 6, Section 11 of the Rules
of Court, such third-party complaint would have to be filed independently and separately
from the original complaint by the defendant against the third-party defendant.
Jurisprudence is consistent in declaring that the purpose of a third-party complaint is to
avoid circuitry of action and unnecessary proliferation of law suits and of disposing
expeditiously in one litigation all the matters arising from one particular set of facts. It thus
appears that the summary nature of the proceedings governed by the Interim Rules, and the
allowance of the filing of third-party complaints is premised on one objective—the expeditious
disposition of cases. Moreover, following the rule of liberal interpretation found in the Interim
Rules, and taking into consideration the suppletory application of the Rules of Court under
Rule 1, Sec. 2 of the Interim Rules, the Court finds that a third-party complaint is not, and
should not be prohibited in controversies governed by the Interim Rules. The logic and
justness of this conclusion are rendered beyond question when it is considered that Sy Tiong
Shiou and Juanita Tan are not complete strangers to the litigation as in fact they are the
moving spirit behind the filing of the principal complaint for accounting and damages against
the Spouses Sy.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The bringing of a third-party defendant is proper if he would
be liable to the plaintiff or to the defendant or both for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against
the original defendant, although the third-party defendant’s liability arises out of another
transaction.—The Court also rules that the third-party complaint of the Spouses Sy should
be admitted. A prerequisite to the exercise of such right is that some substantive basis for a
third-party claim be found to exist, whether the basis be one of indemnity, subrogation,
contribution or other substantive right. The bringing of a third-party defendant is proper if
he would be liable to the plaintiff or to the defendant or both for all or part of the plaintiff’s
claim against the original defendant, although the third-party defendant’s liability arises out
of another transaction. The defendant may implead another as third-party defendant: (a) on
an allegation of liability of the latter to the defendant for contribution, indemnity,
subrogation or any other relief; (b) on the ground of direct liability of the third-party
defendant to the plaintiff; or (c) the liability of the third-party defendant to both the plaintiff
and the defendant.
Same; Same; Same; Same; A third-party complaint must allege facts which prima facie
show that the defendant is entitled to contribution, indemnity, subrogation or other relief from
the third-party defendant.—In determining the sufficiency of the third-party complaint, the
allegations in the original complaint and the third-party complaint must be examined. A
third-party complaint must allege facts which prima facie show that the defendant is entitled
to contribution, indemnity, subrogation or other relief from the third-party defendant.

Case Title : ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO, petitioner, vs. MA. ERLINDA I.

BILDNER, LILY F. RAQUEñO, SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO, MA. CRISTINA A.
ILUSORIO, AND AURORA I. MONTEMAYOR, respondentsCase Nature :
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Pasig City, Br. 263.
Syllabi Class : Criminal Law ; Perjury ; Venue ; Legal Research ;
Judgments ;

The action for perjury must be tried and instituted in the municipality or territory where
the deliberate untruthful statement was made. Ma. Erlinda Bildner (Bildner)
and Lily Raqueno (Raqueno) were charged by Erlinda Ilusorio (Ilusorio) before the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City with perjury arising from their filing, on behalf of
Lakeridge Development Corp. (LDC), of a petition in the Makati RTC and Tagaytay RTC
for issuance of new owner‘s duplicate copy of Certificate of Condominium Title (CCT)
covering condominium units in both Makati and Tagaytay. Bildner and Raqueno claimed,
in their statement before notary public Rafael Dizon, that the owner‘s copies of the
condominium units could no longer be found ―despite earnest and diligent efforts‖ to
locate the same. Using as bases the contents of the original petitions filed in the Makati
and Tagaytay RTCs, Ilusorio filed charges of falsification of public documents and perjury
against Bildner and Raqueno before the Pasig Prosecutor‘s Office. Investigating
Prosecutor Edgardo Bautistadismissed the falsification charges but found probable cause
to indict Bildner and Raqueno for perjury. Bildner and Raqueno moved for the quashal of
the Information filed against them on the following grounds: a.) lack jurisdiction due to
improper venue; b.) lack of bases of the charges as the original petitions had already been
withdawn, since it had already been amended upon the instance of Bildner of Raqueno;
and the alleged perjurious statements were made in the jurisdictional territories of Makati
and Tagaytay, respectively. The MeTC found in favor of Ilusorio, holding that the vital
point is the allegation in the complaint or information of the situs of the offense charged.
The court held that since the information alleges that the offenses were committed in
Pasig City, then the Pasig City MeTC has jurisdiction over the case of perjury.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the place were perjurious statements are made control
the jurisdiction to hear

Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Appeals; Courts; Supreme Court; In all cases where only
questions of law are raised, the appeal “shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review
in accordance with Rule 45.”—A word first on the procedural question raised by respondents.
The present petition is one for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, not a
special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Rule 41 of the Rules of Court (APPEAL
FROM THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS), Section 2(c) provides that in all cases where
only questions of law are raised, the appeal “shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for
review in accordance with Rule 45.” Indubitably, the issue tendered in this case is a question
of law, hence, there is no violation of the principle of hierarchy of courts.
Criminal Law; Perjury; Elements; Criminal Procedure; Preliminary Investigation; It is
the deliberate making of untruthful statements upon any material matter before a competent
person authorized to administer an oath in cases in which the law so requires, which is
imperative in perjury.—There are thus four elements to be taken into account “in determining
whether there is a prima facie case” of perjury, viz.: (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 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. It is the deliberate making of untruthful statements upon any material
matter, however, before a competent person authorized to administer an oath in cases in
which the law so requires, which is imperative in perjury.
Same; Same; Venue; Venue, in criminal cases, being jurisdictional, the 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—whether the perjurious statements
contained in petitions were subscribed and sworn in Pasig is immaterial, the gist of the offense
of perjury being the intentional giving of false statement in the place where the proceeding is
pending.—Venue, in criminal cases, being jurisdictional, the 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, in this case, in Makati and Tagaytay. It
was 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. Whether the
perjurious statements contained in the four petitions were subscribed and sworn in Pasig is
immaterial, the gist of the offense of perjury being the intentional giving of false statement.
So United States v. Cañet, 30 Phil. 371 (1915), teaches, viz.: It is immaterial where the
affidavit was subscribed and sworn, so long as it appears from the information that the
defendant, by means of such affidavit, “swore to” and knowingly submitted false evidence,
material to a point at issue in a judicial proceeding pending in the Court of First Instance of
Iloilo Province. The gist of the 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
Province by means of such affidavit.
Same; Same; Same; Legal Research; Judgments; Both the Metropolitan Trial Court
(MeTC) and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) misappreciated the Supreme Court’s rulings in
Flordelis v. Himalalaon, 84 SCRA 477 (1978), and People v. Aquino, 18 SCRA 555 (1966), as
the petitions-bases of the subject Informations for perjury are required by law to be under
oath.—While the Court finds that, contrary to the MeTC and RTC ruling, venue of the
Informations was improperly laid, and on that score the Court denies the present petition as
priorly stated, it is confronting the sole issue raised by petitioner—whether the questioned
petitions of respondents are, as the MeTC held and which the RTC affirmed, absolutely
privileged on the basis of Flordelis and Aquino. The issue had already been addressed by the
Court in Choa v. People, 399 SCRA 145 (2003), in this wise: Sison and Aquino both
involve libel cases. In Sison, this Court categorically stressed that the term “absolute
privilege” (or “qualified privilege”) has an “established technical meaning, in connection
with civil actions for libel and slander.” x x x x. x x x x. The Flordeliscase is likewise not in
point. There, Flordelis was charged with perjury for having alleged false statements in his
verified answer. This Court held that no perjury could be committed by Flordelis because
“an answer to a complaint in an ordinary civil action need not be under oath,” thus, “it is at
once apparent that one element of the crime of perjury is absent x x x, namely, that the sworn
statement complained of must be required by law.” Verily, both the MeTC and the RTC
misappreciated this Court’s rulings in Flordelis and Aquino as respondents’ petitions-bases
of the subject Informations for perjury are required by law to be under oath.
perjury cases