Case Digest: ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO v. MA. ERLINDA I. BILDNER, et al. 575 SCRA 272 (2008)

ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO v. MA. ERLINDA I. BILDNER, et al. 575 SCRA 272 (2008)

The action for perjury must be tried and instituted in the municipality or territory where the deliberate untruthful statement was made. Ma. Erlinda Bildner (Bildner) and Lily Raqueno (Raqueno) were charged by Erlinda Ilusorio (Ilusorio) before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City with perjury arising from their filing, on behalf of Lakeridge Development Corp. (LDC), of a petition in the Makati RTC and Tagaytay RTC for issuance of new owner‘s duplicate copy of Certificate of Condominium Title (CCT) covering condominium units in both Makati and Tagaytay. Bildner and Raqueno claimed, in their statement before notary public Rafael Dizon, that the owner‘s copies of the condominium units could no longer be found ―despite earnest and diligent efforts‖ to locate the same. Using as bases the contents of the original petitions filed in the Makati and Tagaytay RTCs, Ilusorio filed charges of falsification of public documents and perjury against Bildner and Raqueno before the Pasig Prosecutor‘s Office. Investigating Prosecutor Edgardo Bautista dismissed the falsification charges but found probable cause to indict Bildner and Raqueno for perjury. Bildner and Raqueno moved for the quashal of the Information filed against them on the following grounds: a.) lack jurisdiction due to improper venue; b.) lack of bases of the charges as the original petitions had already been withdawn, since it had already been amended upon the instance of Bildner of Raqueno; and the alleged perjurious statements were made in the jurisdictional territories of Makati and Tagaytay, respectively. The MeTC found in favor of Ilusorio, holding that the vital point is the allegation in the complaint or information of the situs of the offense charged. The court held that since the information alleges that the offenses were committed in Pasig City, then the Pasig City MeTC has jurisdiction over the case of perjury.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the place were perjurious statements are made control the jurisdiction to hear perjury cases

HELD:

It is the deliberate making of untruthful statements upon any material matter, however, before a competent person authorized to administer an oath in cases in which the law so requires, which is imperative in perjury. Venue, in criminal cases, being jurisdictional, the action for perjury must be instituted and tried in the municipality or territory where the deliberate making of an untruthful statement upon any matter was made, in this case, in Makati and Tagaytay. It was in Makati and Tagaytay where the intent to assert an alleged falsehood became manifest and where the alleged untruthful statement finds relevance or materiality in deciding the issue of whether new owner‘s duplicate copies of the CCT and TCTs may issue. Whether the perjurious statements contained in the four petitions were subscribed and sworn in Pasig is immaterial, the gist of the offense of perjury being the intentional giving of false statement.