Case Digest (G.R. No. 181658)
Facts:
Lee Pue Liong a.k.a. Paul Lee v. Chua Pue Chin Lee, G.R. No. 181658, August 07, 2013, Supreme Court First Division, Villarama, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Lee Pue Liong (also Paul Lee) is President of Centillion Holdings, Inc. (CHI), a company embroiled in intra‑corporate disputes with his siblings, including respondent Chua Pue Chin Lee, a majority stockholder and CHI Treasurer. On June 14, 1999 petitioner, purportedly as CHI president, filed a verified petition in the RTC of Manila (LRC Record No. 4004, Branch 4) for issuance of an owners duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 232238, submitting an affidavit of loss and testifying ex parte that the owners duplicate was in his custody and had been lost; the RTC granted the petition by Order dated September 17, 1999 directing issuance of a new owners duplicate.
Respondent and her brother produced in court the owners duplicate and, via an Omnibus Motion, challenged the RTC order; the RTC recalled and set aside its September 17, 1999 Order on November 12, 1999. Thereafter respondent filed a Complaint‑Affidavit dated May 9, 2000 accusing petitioner of perjury for his sworn statements in the RTC petition, and executed a Supplemental Affidavit on June 7, 2000 specifying the allegedly perjured utterances. The Investigating Prosecutor recommended dismissal but the First Assistant City Prosecutor set aside that recommendation and the City Prosecutor filed Informations for perjury (Crim. Case Nos. 352270–71 CR) before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila, Branch 28.
At the MeTC trial, respondent’s counsel Atty. Augusto M. Macam appeared and acted as private prosecutor under the control and supervision of the public prosecutor. After the prosecution’s first witness, petitioner moved to exclude the private prosecutor on the ground that perjury is a public offense and thus no private offended party may intervene; the MeTC denied the Omnibus Motion by Order dated August 15, 2003 and denied reconsideration on November 5, 2003. Petitioner sought relief from the Court of Appeals via CA‑G.R. SP No. 81510, praying for certiorari and injunctive relief; the CA, by Decision dated May 31, 2007 (penning Justice Regalado E. Maambong), affirmed the MeTC, holding that respondent — as corporate treasurer and stockholder who produced the owners duplicate that defeated issuance of a new title — was an offended party entitled to intervene, and that a private prosecutor may participate subject to the public prosecutor’s control. The CA denied reconsideration by Resolution dated Ja...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave error in upholding the MeTC’s determination that there is a private offended party in the crime of perjury, a crime said to be against public interest?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in upholding the MeTC’s allowance of respondent, an alleged stockholder and treasurer of CHI, to intervene in the criminal perjury case as private complainant on behalf of the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)