Union Bank of the Philippines and Desi Tomas. v.
People, annulled and set aside on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.
G.R. No. 192565, Feb. 28, 2012
Crim Pro - Jurisdiction
Facts:
Union bank filed two complaints for sum of money with prayer for a
writ of replevin against spouses Eddie and Eliza Tamondong and a
John Doe. The first complaint was filed before the RTC, Branch 109,
Pasay City on April 13, 1998. The second complaint was filed on
March 15, 2000 and was raffled in the MeTC, Branch 47, Pasay City.
In both cases, Desi Tomas executed and signed the
Certification against Forum Shopping. Then, she was charged of
deliberately violating Article 183 of the RPC (perjury) "by falsely
declaring under oath in the Certificate against Forum Shopping in
the second complaint that she did not commence any other action
or proceeding involving the same issue in another tribunal or
agency". The Certification was notarized in Makati City but was
submitted and used in Pasay City, while the Information against
Union Bank and Tomas was filed in Makati.
Tomas filed a Motion to Quash on the grounds that the
venue was improperly laid and that the facts do not constitute an
offense. On the first ground, Tomas argued that since it is the
Pasay City Court where the Certificate was submitted and used, it
should have the jurisdiction over the case against her. The MeTC-
Makati City denied the Motion to Quash, ruling that it has
jurisdiction over the case since the Certificate was notarized there
and the allegations in the Information sufficiently charged Tomas
with perjury. Her subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was
denied.
When the case was elevated to the RTC-Makati City, the
petitioners prayed that the ruling of the MeTC-Makati City be
They also cited the rulings in US vs. Canet and Ilusorio v. Bildner
which state that "venue and jurisdiction should be in the place
where the false document was presented".
The petition, however, was found to have no merit as a recent
jurisprudence, Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy. In the Sy Tiong Shiou case, the
high court ruled that the criminal action shall be instituted and
tried in the court of the municipality where the perjury was
committed, or where any of its essential ingredients occured. The
petitioners then filed this petition to the Supreme Court to address
the seeming conflict between the rulings in Illusorio v. Bildner and
Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy.
Issue: Where is the proper venue of perjury under Art. 183 of the
RPC - the place, where the Certificate against Forum Shopping was
notarized or where the Certification was presented to the trial
court?
Held: The place where the Certificate was notarized, the MeTC-
Makati City, is the proper venue for the criminal action.
The criminal act charged was for the execution of an
affidavit that contained a falsity. Art. 183 of the RPC is the
applicable provision for this case; and following so, the jurisdiction
and venue should be determined on the basis of this article which
penalizes one who makes an affidavit upon any material matter
before a competent person authorized to administer an oath in
cases in which the law so requires. The constitutive act of the
offense is the making of an affidavit, so, the criminal act is
consummated when the statement containing a falsity is
subscribed and sworn before a duly authorized person.'
 The SC finds the ruling in Sy Tiong as more in accord with
Art. 183 of the RPC. The Court ruled that the crime of perjury
committed through the making of a false affidavit under Art. 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 sown
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, the determination
of venue shall be based on the acts alleged in the Information to
be constitutive of the crime committed.
Choa vs. People (299 SCRA 145) Facts: Alfonso Chan Choa,
petitioner, is a Chinese national. On April 25, 1989, he filed with
the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, a verified petition for
naturalization. Later on, the petitioner withdrew such petition for
naturalization for some unknown reason. After 2 years, a case was
filed against him by his wife for perjury, stating that during within
the time the petitioner is asking for naturalization, he committed
acts of perjury by stating material facts which his wife said was all
false. Issue: Whether petitioner may be convicted of perjury based
on the alleged false statements he stated in his petition for
naturalization withdrawn almost two years prior to the filing of the
Information for perjury? Decision: We cannot go along with the
submission of the petitioner and the Solicitor General that
petitioner could no longer be prosecuted for perjury in view of the
withdrawal of the petition for naturalization containing his false
material statements. In this jurisdiction, it is not necessary that the
proceeding in which the perjury is alleged to have been committed
be first terminated before a prosecution for the said crime is
commenced. At the time he filed his petition for naturalization, he
had committed perjury. As discussed earlier, all the elements of the
crime were already present then. He knew all along that he wilfully
stated material falsities in his verified petition. Surprisingly, he
withdrew his petition without even stating any reason therefore.
But such withdrawal only terminated the proceedings for
naturalization. It did not extinguish his culpability for perjury he
already committed. Indeed, the fact of withdrawal alone cannot bar
the State from prosecuting petitioner, an alien, who made a
mockery not only of the Philippine naturalization law but the
judicial proceedings as well. And the petition for naturalization
tainted with material falsities can be used as evidence of his
unlawful act.
BATULANON VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Case Digest
LEONILA BATULANON VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. NO. 139857 September 15, 2006
FACTS: Polomok Credit Cooperative Incorporated (PCCI) employed
Leonila Batulanon as its Cashier/Manager from May 1980 up to
December 22, 1982. She was in charge of receiving deposits from
and releasing loans to the member of the cooperative.
During an audit conducted in December 1982, certain irregularities
concerning the release of loans were discovered. It was found that
Batulanon falsified four commercial documents, all checks/cash
vouchers representing granted loans to different persons namely:
Omadlao, Oracion, Arroyo and Dennis Batulanon, making it appear
that said names were granted a loan and received the amount of
the checks/cash vouchers when in truth and in fact the said
persons never received a grant, never received the checks, and
never signed the check vouchers issued in their names. In
furtherance, Batulanon released to herself the checks and received
the loans and thereafter misappropriated and converted it to her
own use and benefit.
Thereafter, four Informations for Estafa through Falsification of
Commercial Documents were filed against Batulanon. The
prosecution presented Medallo, Gopio, Jr. and Jayoma as witnesses.
Medallo, the posting clerk whose job was to assist Batulanon in the
preparation of cash vouchers testified that Batulanon forged the
signatures of Omadlao, Oracion and Arroyo. Gopio, Jr. stated that
Oracion is Batulanon sister-in-law and Dennis Batulanon is her son
who was only 3 years old in 1982. He averred that membership in
the cooperative is not open to minors.
On April 15, 1993, the trial court rendered a Decision convicting
Batulanon of Estafa through Falsification of Commercial
Documents. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial
court, hence this petition.
ISSUE: Whether the crime committed by Batulanon was
Falsification of Private Documents.
HELD: Yes. Although the offense charged in the Information is
Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Documents, Batulanon
could be convicted of Falsification of Private Documents under the
well-settled rule that it is the allegation in the information that
determines the nature of the offense and not the technical name
given in the preamble of the information.
As there is no complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of
Private Documents, it is important to ascertain whether the
offender is to be charged with Falsification of a Private Document
or with Estafa. If the falsification of a private document is
committed as a means to commit estafa, the proper crime to be
charged is falsification. If the Estafa can be committed without the
necessity of falsifying a document, the proper crime is Estafa. We
find that the Court of Appeals correctly held Batulanon guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of Falsification of Private Documents in
the cases of Omadlao, Oracion and Arroyo.
In the case of Dennis Batulanon, records show that Batulanon did
not falsify the signature of Dennis. What she did was to sign: by:
Ibatulanon to indicate that she received the proceeds of the loan
in behalf of Dennis. Said act does not fall under any of the modes
of Falsification under Article 171 because there is nothing
untruthful about the fact that she used the name of Dennis and
that as representative of the latter, obtained the proceeds of the
loan from PCCI. The essence of falsification is the act of making
untruthful or false statements, which is not attendant in this case.
As to whether, such representation involves fraud which caused
damage to PCCI is a different matter which will make her liable for
estafa, but not for falsification. Hence, it was an error for the courts
below to hold that Batulanon is also guilty of Falsification of Private
Document with respect to the case involving the cash voucher of
Dennis Batulanon.