G.R. No.
192565 February 28, 2012
UNION BANK OF THE, PHILIPPINES AND DESI TOMAS
UNION BANK OF THE, PHILIPPINES AND DESI TOMAS
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
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.