UNION BANK OF THE, PHILIPPINES AND DESI TOMA IIS vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES II G.R. No. 192565

G.R. No. 192565 February 28, 2012
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.