UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R.

No. 192565. February 28, 2012.

FACTS:

Desi Tomas was charged in court for perjury when she falsely declared under oath in the Certificate against Forum
Shopping. Tomas filed a motion to quash citing that the Makati MTC has no jurisdiction as the document was
submitted and used in Pasay and that there was no crime committed as not all of the elements of perjury was
present.

The lower courts denied the motion saying that Makati has jurisdiction as it was notarized there and ruled that she
was sufficiently charged with perjury.

ISSUE: Whether, in a crime of perjury, the proper venue is where it was notarized or where it was used.

RULING:

The SC ruled that Makati was the right venue.

The SC cites Rule 110, Sec. 15 of the Rules of Court where it was stated that criminal action shall be instituted where
the offense was committed or where any of its essential elements occurred. 

The SC, one-by-one stated the elements of perjury and provided that Tomas did all things in Makati, thus making
Makati the right venue for the case.

UNION BANK OF THE, PHILIPPINES AND DESI TOMA IIS vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES II G.R. No. 192565

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.

HELD:

Yes, the Metropolitan Trial Court has jurisdiction to try and decide the case at bar.

Tomas’ deliberate and intentional assertion of falsehood was allegedly shown when she made the false declarations in
the Certificate against Forum Shopping before a notary public in Makati City, despite her knowledge that the material
statements she subscribed and swore to were not true. Thus, Makati City is the proper venue and MeTC-Makati City is
the proper court to try the perjury case against Tomas, pursuant to Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure as all the essential elements constituting the crime of perjury were committed within the
territorial jurisdiction of Makati City, not Pasay City.