Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Union Bank of The Philippines and Desi Tomas
Union Bank of The Philippines and Desi Tomas
Desi Tomas. v. People, G.R. No. the case against her. The MeTC-
192565, Feb. 28, 2012 Makati City denied the Motion to
Quash, ruling that it has jurisdiction
Crim Pro - Jurisdiction over the case since the Certificate
was notarized there and the
allegations in the Information
Facts: sufficiently charged Tomas with
Union bank filed two complaints for perjury. Her subsequent Motion for
sum of money with prayer for a writ Reconsideration was denied.
of replevin against spouses Eddie When the case was elevated to
and Eliza Tamondong and a John the RTC-Makati City, the petitioners
Doe. The first complaint was filed prayed that the ruling of the MeTC-
before the RTC, Branch 109, Pasay Makati City be annulled and set
City on April 13, 1998. The second aside on the ground of grave abuse of
complaint was filed on March 15, discretion. They also cited the
2000 and was raffled in the MeTC, rulings in US vs. Canet and Ilusorio
Branch 47, Pasay City. v. Bildner which state that "venue
and jurisdiction should be in the
In both cases, Desi Tomas place where the false document was
executed and signed the Certification presented".
against Forum Shopping. Then, she
was charged of deliberately violating The petition, however, was
Article 183 of the RPC (perjury) "by found to have no merit as a recent
falsely declaring under oath in the jurisprudence, Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy.
Certificate against Forum Shopping In the Sy Tiong Shiou case, the high
in the second complaint that she did court ruled that the criminal action
not commence any other action or shall be instituted and tried in the
proceeding involving the same issue court of the municipality where the
in another tribunal or agency". The perjury was committed, or where any
Certification was notarized in of its essential ingredients occured.
Makati City but was submitted and The petitioners then filed this
used in Pasay City, while the petition to the Supreme Court to
Information against Union Bank and address the seeming conflict between
Tomas was filed in Makati. the rulings in Illusorio v. Bildner and
Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy.
Tomas filed a Motion to Quash
on the grounds that the venue was Issue: Where is the proper venue of
improperly laid and that the facts do perjury under Art. 183 of the RPC -
not constitute an offense. On the first the place, where the Certificate
ground, Tomas argued that since it is against Forum Shopping was
the Pasay City Court where the notarized or where the Certification
Certificate was submitted and used, was presented to the trial court?
Held: The place where the Certificate nor civil, a written sown statement is
was notarized, the MeTC-Makati submitted, venue may either be at
City, is the proper venue for the the place where the sworn statement
criminal action. is submitted or where the oath was
The criminal act charged was taken as the taking of the oath and
for the execution of an affidavit that the submission are both material
contained a falsity. Art. 183 of the ingredients of the crime committed.
RPC is the applicable provision for In all cases, the determination of
this case; and following so, the venue shall be based on the acts
jurisdiction and venue should be alleged in the Information to be
determined on the basis of this constitutive of the crime committed.
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.'
If in lieu of or as supplement to
the actual testimony made in a
proceeding that is neither criminal
[ GR No. 199210, Oct 23, 2013 ] [Appellant] and wife [BBB] were
PEOPLE v. RICARDO M. VIDAA separated in 1998. They have four (4)
children namely: [AAA], [CCC],
[DDD] and [EEE]. In 1999,
FACTS [appellant] began living in with a
certain Irene Valoria, his common-
The accusatory portion of the law wife, who became the
Information[3] dated February 6, aforementioned children's
2004 for rape in relation to Republic stepmother. They were staying in a
Act No. 7610 reads as follows: one-bedroom house owned by a
certain Edgar Magsakay at Sta.
That on or about the 16th day of Maria, Licab, Nueva Ecija. At night,
September 2003, at x x x, Province of [appellant] and his common-law wife
Nueva Ecija, Republic of the sleep in the sala while the children
Philippines and within the occupy the bedroom. [AAA] is the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, eldest of the brood and was 15 years
the above-named accused with lewd old in the year 2003, having been
designs and intent to have carnal born on 13 June 1988.
knowledge of [AAA[4]], his own
daughter, a minor, 15 years old, and Around midnight of 16 September
while using his influence as a father, 2003, [appellant] was alone at the
over said minor, did then and there sala and the children were asleep
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously inside the bedroom. [AAA] suddenly
have carnal knowledge of and sexual was jolted from her sleep when
intercourse with said minor against somebody pulled her out of the bed
her will and consent, to her damage and brought her to the sala. She
and prejudice. later recognized the person as her
father, herein [appellant], who
After more than a year of being at covered her mouth and told her not
large since the issuance on to make any noise. At the sala,
September 1, 2004 of the warrant for [appellant] forcibly removed [AAA]'s
his arrest,[5] appellant was finally short pants, t-shirt, bra and panty.
arrested and subsequently arraigned As she lay naked, [appellant]
on January 30, 2006 wherein he inserted his penis into [AAA]'s
pleaded "NOT GUILTY" to the vagina. [AAA]'s ordeal lasted for
charge of rape.[6] about five (5) minutes and all the
while she felt an immense pain.
[Appellant] tried to touch [AAA]'s
other private parts but she resisted.
The prosecution's version of the
During the consummation of
events that transpired in this case
[appellant]'s lust upon his daughter,
was narrated in the Plaintiff-
he warned her not to tell anybody or
Appellee's Brief in this manner:
else he will kill her and her siblings.
Appellant vehemently denies his
The next day, [AAA] went to the eldest child's (AAA's) allegation of
house of Francisco and Zenny rape by asseverating that he could
Joaquin. Spouses Joaquin are friends not have raped AAA because, on the
of [appellant], whose house is about date when the alleged rape took
500 meters away. Zenny Joaquin place, she was living in Francisco
noticed something was bothering
and Zenny Joaquin's house and not
[AAA] so she confronted the latter.
in his residence where the alleged
[AAA] broke down and revealed to
Zenny what happened to her at the rape was consummated. This
hands of [appellant]. Taken aback by assertion was corroborated on
the trauma suffered by the young material points by appellant's son,
lass, Zenny promptly accompanied EEE. Furthermore, appellant insists
[AAA] to the police to report the that the credibility of AAA is suspect
incident. since her narration of the alleged
rape incident does not indicate that
The examination of the medico-legal she resisted appellant's carnal
officer on [AAA] revealed "positive desires.
healed laceration at 7 o'clock position
positive hymenal tag."[7] (Citations We find no merit in appellant's
omitted.)
contention.