G.R. No. 181658
August 7, 2013
LEE PUE LIONG A.K.A. PAUL LEE, PETITIONER, vs. CHUA PUE CHIN LEE, RESPONDENT.
Facts:
The case involves Lee Pue Liong, President of Centillion Holdings, Inc. (CHI), and his
siblings, including respondent Chua Pue Chin Lee, who are involved in intra-corporate
disputes within the CKC Group of Companies. On July 19, 1999, Lee's siblings
barricaded themselves inside a CKC-owned factory, resulting in the filing of criminal
cases against them.
On June 14, 1999, Lee filed a petition on behalf of CHI to obtain a duplicate copy of a
transfer certificate of title TCT No. 232238 for a property owned by CHI. He claimed that
the original owner's duplicate copy of the TCT was lost. The petition was initially granted
by the RTC of Manila. However, the respondent filed an Omnibus Motion, alleging that
Lee knew she had the original TCT and only sought a new copy to mortgage the
property.
The RTC recalled and set aside its previous order. Subsequently, the respondent filed a
complaint-affidavit accusing Lee of perjury for making false statements in his petition,
affidavit, and testimony regarding the lost TCT. She alleged that Lee knew she had the
original copy and that he intended to mortgage the property without her knowledge or
consent. The Investigating Prosecutor initially recommended the dismissal of the case,
but the First Assistant City Prosecutor overruled and filed Information against Lee for
perjury before the MeTC. During the trial, Lee's counsel moved to exclude the
respondent and her counsel from participating, arguing that perjury is a public offense.
The MeTC allowed both parties to submit their motions and comments on the matter.
Lee then filed an Omnibus Motion, contending that perjury does not involve a private
offended party and therefore a private prosecutor cannot intervene. The Prosecution
opposed the motion. The MeTC denied Lee's motion, stating that the offended party has
the right to intervene, subject to the control of the public prosecutor. Lee's motion for
reconsideration was also denied. Lee appealed to the CA, seeking to enjoin the MeTC
and the respondent from enforcing the MeTC orders and allowing the private prosecutor
to participate. However, the CA ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that the
presence of a private prosecutor was permissible under the rules and cited previous
jurisprudence.
Issue/s:
WOR there is a civil liability arising from the crime of perjury.
WOR the intervention and appearance of a private prosecutor is correct and valid.
Held/Ruling:
The SC, in resolving the issue against the Petitioner, considered the respondent as an
offended party. The allegation by the Petitioner of the loss of the TCT, is, according to
the Court, “injurious to the respondent’s personal credibility and reputation insofar as her
faithful performance of the duties and responsibilities as corporate treasurer.” There is
therefore, a civil action deemed instituted with the criminal action that would justify the
appearance of a private prosecutor.
Generally, the basis of civil liability arising from crime is the fundamental postulate of
our law that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. Underlying this legal
principle is the traditional theory that when a person commits a crime, he offends two
entities, namely (1) the society in which he lives in or the political entity, called the
State, whose law he has violated; and (2) the individual member of that society whose
person, right, honor, chastity or property was actually or directly injured or damaged by
the same punishable act or omission.
Section 1, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, provides:
SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.—(a) When a criminal action is
instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense
charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party
waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil
action prior to the criminal action.
For the recovery of civil liability in the criminal action, the appearance of a private
prosecutor is allowed under Section 16 of Rule 110:
SEC. 16. Intervention of the offended party in criminal action.—Where the civil action for
recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, the
offended party may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense. (Emphasis
supplied.)
Section 12, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended,
defines an offended party as "the person against whom or against whose property the
offense was committed." In Garcia v. Court of Appeals” this Court rejected petitioner’s
theory that it is only the State which is the offended party in public offenses like bigamy.
We explained that from the language of Section 12, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, it is
reasonable to assume that the offended party in the commission of a crime,
public or private, is the party to whom the offender is civilly liable, and therefore
the private individual to whom the offender is civilly liable is the offended party.