13. Union Bank vs People G.R. No.

192565 February 28, 2012

Doctrine: Under the circumstances, Article 183 of the RPC is indeed the
applicable provision; thus, jurisdiction and venue should be determined on
the basis of this article which penalizes one who make[s] 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; thus, the criminal act is
consummated when the statement containing a falsity is subscribed and
sworn before a duly authorized person. Based on these considerations, we
hold that our ruling in Sy Tiong is more in accord with Article 183 of the RPC
and Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure. To reiterate for the guidance of the Bar and the Bench, the crime
of perjury committed through the making of a false affidavit under Article
183 of the RPC is committed at the time the affiant subscribes and swears to
his or her affidavit since it is at that time that all the elements of the crime
of perjury are executed.

Facts: Tomas was charged in court for perjury under Article 183 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC) for making a false narration in a Certificate
against Forum Shopping. The Information against her reads:

That on or about the 13th day of March 2000 in the City of Makati, Metro
Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously make untruthful statements under oath upon a material matter
before a competent person authorized to administer oath which the law
requires to wit: said accused stated in the Verification/Certification/Affidavit
of merit of a complaint for sum of money with prayer for a writ of replevin
docketed as [Civil] Case No. 342-00 of the Metropolitan Trial Court[,] Pasay
City, that the Union Bank of the Philippines has not commenced any other
action or proceeding involving the same issues in another tribunal or agency,
accused knowing well that said material statement was false thereby making
a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood.[2]

The accusation stemmed from petitioner Union Banks two (2) complaints for
sum of money with prayer for a writ of replevin against the spouses Eddie
and Eliza Tamondong and a John Doe. The first complaint, docketed as
Civil Case No. 98-0717, was filed before the RTC, Branch 109, Pasay City on
April 13, 1998. The second complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 342-000,
was filed on March 15, 2000 and raffled to the MeTC, Branch
47, Pasay City. Both complaints showed that Tomas executed and signed the
Certification against Forum Shopping. Accordingly, she was charged of
deliberately violating Article 183 of the RPC by falsely declaring under oath
in the Certificate against Forum Shopping in the second complaint that she
did not commence any other action or proceeding involving the same issue
in another tribunal or agency.

Tomas filed a Motion to Quash,[3] citing two grounds. First, she argued that
the venue was improperly laid since it is the Pasay City court (where the
Certificate against Forum Shopping was submitted and used) and not
the MeTC-Makati City (where the Certificate against Forum Shopping was
subscribed) that has jurisdiction over the perjury case. Second, she argued
that the facts charged do not constitute an offense because: (a) the third
element of perjury the willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood was not
alleged with particularity without specifying what the other action or
proceeding commenced involving the same issues in another tribunal or
agency; (b) there was no other action or proceeding pending in another
court when the second complaint was filed; and (c) she was charged with
perjury by giving false testimony while the allegations in the Information
make out perjury by making a false affidavit.

Issue: Whether proper venue of perjury under Article 183 of the RPC should
be Makati City, where the Certificate against Forum Shopping was notarized,
or Pasay City, where the Certification was presented to the trial court.

51. People vs Glino G.R. no. 173793, December 4, 2007

Doctrine: An essential element of murder and homicide, whether in their

consummated, frustrated or attempted stage, is intent of the offenders to kill
the victim immediately before or simultaneously with the infliction of
injuries. Intent to kill is a specific intent which the prosecution must prove
by direct or circumstantial evidence, while general criminal intent is
presumed from the commission of a felony by dolo.54

In People v. Delim,55 the Court had occasion to explain the rudiments of

proving intent to kill in crimes against persons. It may consist in: (1) the
means used by the malefactors; (2) the nature, location and number of
wounds sustained by the victim; (3) the conduct of the malefactors before,
at the time of, or immediately after the killing of the victim; (4) the
circumstances under which the crime was committed; and (5) the motives of
accused. If the victim dies as a result of a deliberate act of the malefactors,
intent to kill is presumed.56

In the case under review, intent to kill Virginia is betrayed by the conduct of
accused-appellant and his co-assailant Baloes before, at the time of, and
immediately after the commission of the crime. In her testimony before the
trial court, Virginia disclosed that she was shocked and was initially unable to
come to Domingo's succor as the first blow was struck; that as Domingo was
about to fall down from where he was seated, she embraced him; that she
tried to shield him from further attacks; that when the assault ceased, her
finger was gushing with blood. If the assailants also intended to kill her, they
could have easily stabbed her in any vital part of her body. They did not. The
nature and location of her wound militates against the finding of their intent
to kill. According to the physician who examined her immediately after the
incident, Virginia suffered from an incised wound measuring 2.5 centimeters
by 0.2 centimeter in her fifth digit, right hand.58

Gleaned from the foregoing, it is crystal-clear that the wound on Virginia was
inflicted during her attempt to shield Domingo from accused-appellant's and
Baloes' knife thrusts. It bears stressing that Virginia embraced Domingo
while the assault upon him was at its peak. Evidently, the wound was
inflicted while she was in that position. The wound required medical
attendance, and rendered Virginia incapable of labor, for a period of ten (10)
to thirty (30) days.59 Clearly, accused-appellant Glino should be held liable
for less serious physical injuries only, and not attempted murder.

Facts: On November 15, 1998, at around 7:20 p.m., in Moonwalk, Las Pias
City, husband and wife Domingo and Virginia Boji hailed a passenger
jeepney bound for Alabang-Zapote Road. The couple sat on the two
remaining vacant seats on opposing rows of the jeepney. Virginia seated
herself on the vehicle's left side while Domingo occupied the vacant seat at
the right row.7

Moments later, the woman seated next to Virginia alighted. Accused-

appellant Conrado Glino took her place. He was reeking of liquor. As the
jeepney ran its normal route, Virginia noticed accused-appellant inching
closer to her. His head eventually found its way on Virginia's shoulder. Irked,
Virginia sought accused-appellant's attention and asked him to sit properly,
citing adequate space. Accused-appellant angrily replied, "Oh, kung ayaw
mong may katabi, bumaba ka, at magtaxi ka!" Virginia decided to ignore his
snide remarks. She then turned her back on him.8

Accused-appellant, however, persisted in violating Virginia's personal space,

leaning on the latter's shoulders. It was at this point that Domingo decided
to tell Glino to sit properly. Accused-appellant arrogantly retorted, "Anong
pakialam mo?" Domingo reasoned out that he is Virginia's husband.
Domingo further said, "Kasi lalasing-lasing ka, hindi mo naman kaya!"9

Marvin Baloes, who, it turned out, was Glino's equally drunk companion,
cursed Domingo. Baloes then provokingly asked the latter, "Anong gusto
mo?" Domingo replied, "Wala akong sinabing masama."10 After the heated
verbal tussle, accused-appellant and Baloes appeared to have calmed down,
confining themselves to whispering to one another.11
When the jeepney approached Casimiro Village, Baloes turned to the driver
and told him that he and Glino were about to alight. As the jeepney ground
to a halt, Baloes unexpectedly drew an improvised knife and stabbed
Domingo in the chest.12 Accused-appellant then unfolded a 29-inch Batangas
knife (balisong) and joined Baloes in stabbing Domingo. Surprised and
shocked at the sudden attack, Domingo failed to offer any form of resistance
to the duo's vicious assault. In all, Domingo sustained nine stab wounds
throughout his body.13

Virginia tried vainly to shield Domingo from his assailants. She tightly
embraced Domingo. Virginia's efforts, however, all went for naught as
accused-appellant Glino and Baloes were unrelenting. When the senseless
assault ceased, Virginia found herself bloodied from incised wounds in her
fingers.14

The other passengers of the jeepney scampered for the nearest exit
immediately after the first blow was struck. Some of them had to resort to
jumping from the vehicle's window to avoid harm's way.15

Accused-appellant Glino and Baloes attempted to flee the scene of the crime
and ran towards Camella Center. Baloes, however, fell down to the ground
due to intoxication. Glino, unmindful of his companion, was able to run a
distance of 45 meters before he was apprehended by traffic enforcers Alvin
Cristobal and Ruben Ramirez. The two traffic aides, who were the first to
respond to the crime scene, caught sight of the slow-moving jeepney and of
the passengers jumping off it. With the help of a concerned motorist, they
were able to pin Baloes and Glino to the ground. They later turned the two
suspects over to the police, who arrived shortly thereafter.16

Subsequently, Virginia and Domingo were brought to the University of

Perpetual Help, Rizal Medical Center in Las Pias City. Domingo was,
however, pronounced dead after a few minutes. Domingo's chest wound
proved mortal.17 On November 18, 1998, accused-appellant Glino and Baloes
were indicted for murder18 for the death of Domingo Boji and attempted
murder19 for the stabbing of Virginia Boji.

89. RENE RONULO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Respondent. G.R. No. 182438, 2 July 2014.

Doctrine: Article 352 of the RPC penalizes an authorized solemnizing officer

who shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage ceremony. The elements
of this crime are:
 1. authority of the solemnizing officer; and
2. his performance of an illegal marriage ceremony.
The first element is present since Petitioner himself admitted that he has
authority to solemnize a marriage. The second element is present since the
alleged "blessing" by Petitioner is tantamount to the performance of an
illegal marriage ceremony.There is no prescribed form or rite for the
solemnization of a marriage.

However, Article 6 of the Family Code provides that it shall be necessary:

1. for the contracting parties to appear personally before the solemnizing
officer; and
2. declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age that
they take each other as husband and wife.

The first requirement is present since petitioner admitted to it. The second
requirement is likewise present since the prosecution, through the testimony
of its witnesses, proved that the contracting parties personally declared that
they take each other as husband and wife.

Facts: Joey Umadac and Claire Bingayen were scheduled to marry on 29

March 2003 at the Sta. Rosa Catholic Parish Church in Ilocos Norte. But on
the day of the wedding, the church's officiating priest refused to solemnize
the marriage because of lack of a marriage license.

With the couple and the guests already dressed for the wedding, they
headed to an Aglipayan Church. The Aglipayan priest, herein petitioner
Ronulo, conducted a ceremony on the same day where the couple took each
other as husband and wife in front of the guests. This was despite
Petitioner's knowledge of the couple's lack of marriage license.

Petitioner was eventually charged of violating Article 352 of the RPC for
performing an illegal marriage ceremony. The MTC did not believe
Petitioner's defense that what he did was an act of blessing and was not
tantamount to solemnization of marriage and was found guilty.

Issue: Whether petitioner committed an illegal marriage.