Perjury and Venue: Where the False Statement Truly Matters

In a significant ruling on criminal procedure, the Supreme Court clarified that the venue for perjury cases is determined by where the false statement is actually used or finds relevance—not merely where the affidavit was notarized. The case of Ilusorio v. Bildner (G.R. Nos. 173935-38, December 23, 2008) provides crucial guidance on this often-confused point of law.

The Facts of the Case

Erlinda K. Ilusorio filed perjury charges against several individuals who, acting on behalf of Lakeridge Development Corp., had filed petitions in various courts for the issuance of new owner's duplicate copies of property titles. The petitions claimed the original titles were lost. Ilusorio, however, alleged she was in possession of those titles.

The criminal Informations for perjury were filed in Pasig City, where the petitions had been notarized before a notary public. The respondents moved to quash the charges, arguing improper venue. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasig City initially ruled that venue was proper, relying on the allegations in the Information. However, it ultimately granted the motion to quash on a different ground: that the statements in the petitions were absolutely privileged.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed this ruling, citing cases like Flordelis v. Himalalaon and People v. Aquino, which dealt with the privileged character of statements made in pleadings.

The Issue Before the Supreme Court

The core issue was whether the Pasig City courts had jurisdiction over the perjury cases. A secondary question was whether the lower courts correctly applied the doctrine of absolute privilege to the petitions.

The Ruling: Venue is Jurisdictional

The Supreme Court denied the petition but on different grounds than the lower courts. The Court held that venue was improperly laid in Pasig City.

The Court explained that venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional—it is an essential element that must be properly established. For perjury, the offense is committed when a person knowingly makes untruthful statements upon any material matter, under oath, before a competent officer, in cases where the law so requires.

The Court emphasized that the gist of perjury is the intentional giving of a false statement. It is not the act of notarization that constitutes the crime, but the deliberate use of the false statement for a legal purpose. In this case, the false statements were made in petitions filed in Makati City and Tagaytay City. It was in those places where the intent to assert the alleged falsehood became manifest and where the statements found their materiality.

Citing the old case of United States v. Cañet, the Court stressed: "It is immaterial where the affidavit was subscribed and sworn, so long as it appears from the information that the defendant, by means of such affidavit, 'swore to' and knowingly submitted false evidence, material to a point at issue in a judicial proceeding."

The Court Corrects the Lower Courts on "Privilege"

Although the Court denied the petition on venue grounds, it also corrected the lower courts' erroneous reliance on the doctrine of absolute privilege. The Court clarified that Flordelis and Aquino were not applicable.

In Choa v. People, the Court had already explained that Sison and Aquino involved libel cases, where the concept of "absolute privilege" has a specific technical meaning. As for Flordelis, that case involved false statements in an answer to a complaint—a pleading that does not need to be under oath. Since perjury requires a sworn statement that the law requires to be under oath, the element was missing in that case.

Here, the petitions for issuance of new owner's duplicate copies of titles are required by law to be under oath. Therefore, the lower courts misapplied the doctrine of privilege.

Practical Takeaways

• Venue in perjury is where the false statement is used, not where it is notarized. Filing a false sworn petition in one city but notarizing it in another means the criminal case belongs in the city where the petition was filed.
• The notary's location is not the deciding factor. The Supreme Court made it clear that the act of subscribing and swearing before a notary is immaterial if the false statement is submitted and used in a different jurisdiction.
• The "privileged pleading" defense has limits. Statements in pleadings are not absolutely immune from perjury prosecution, especially when the law requires the pleading to be under oath.
• Venue objections are serious. Because venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases, a wrong venue can invalidate the proceedings, making it a critical issue to raise early in a case.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.