Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-20-2584)
Facts:
The case involves petitioners Antonio B. Monfort III and Ildefonso B. Monfort, who are children of the late Antonio H. Monfort, Jr., one of the original stockholders and incorporators of Monfort Hermanos Agricultural Development Corporation (MHADC). On October 28, 1998, petitioners filed a criminal complaint for perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code before the City Prosecutor of Cadiz against the private respondents—Ma. Antonia M. Salvatierrra, Paul Monfort, Ramon H. Monfort, Jacqueline M. Yusay, Yvette M. Benedicto, and Ester S. Monfort. The complaint was docketed as I.S. No. 8009. The petitioners alleged that the respondents made false statements in their counter-affidavits dated June 11, 1998, claiming that the 1996 annual stockholders' meeting of MHADC was held on October 16, 1996, and that they were duly elected as board directors during that meeting. Petitioners insisted that the meeting was held on November 27, 1996, as indicated in the 1996 General Inf
...Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-20-2584)
Facts:
- Parties and Background
- Petitioners Antonio B. Monfort III and Ildefonso B. Monfort are children of the late Antonio H. Monfort, Jr., who was an original stockholder and incorporator of Monfort Hermanos Agricultural Development Corporation (MHADC).
- Private respondents include Ma. Antonia M. Salvatierra, Paul Monfort, Ramon H. Monfort, Jacqueline M. Yusay, Yvette M. Benedicto, and Ester S. Monfort.
- Complaint for Perjury and Related Proceedings
- On October 28, 1998, petitioners filed a criminal complaint for perjury (I.S. No. 8009) against private respondents before the City Prosecutor of Cadiz.
- The complaint alleged that private respondents made false statements in counter-affidavits dated June 11, 1998, concerning the date of the 1996 annual stockholders’ meeting of MHADC and their election as board directors during that meeting.
- Petitioners insisted that:
- The 1996 annual stockholders’ meeting was held on November 27, 1996 (as indicated in the 1996 General Information Sheet or GIS filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC).
- There was no election of board directors on October 16, 1996, as alleged by respondents.
- Private Respondents’ Counter-Affidavits
- Private respondents asserted that:
- The annual stockholders’ meeting was held on October 16, 1996, during which they were elected as board directors.
- The 1996 GIS contained erroneous statements made by the corporate accountant, Litonjua, Desabelle, and Associates (LDA).
- LDA admitted these honest mistakes and sent a letter to the SEC to correct the meeting date to October 16, 1996.
- The November 27, 1996, date was actually a special board meeting, not the annual stockholders’ meeting.
- Resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor
- On April 14, 1999, Investigator Abraham E. Tionko dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause, making the following findings:
- The 1996 GIS contained erroneous information;
- It would have been impossible for persons deceased in the 1980s to be elected on November 27, 1996, per GIS;
- November 27, 1996, was inconsistent with MHADC’s by-laws, which provided for the annual meeting on the last Thursday of November (November 28, 1996);
- The meeting could have taken place on October 16, 1996;
- There was no willful and deliberate falsehood on the part of respondents as the errors originated from LDA’s mistakes;
- Negligence or imprudence cannot amount to perjury;
- Consequently, the complaint was dismissed for lack of probable cause.
- Appeals and Further Resolutions
- Petitioners appealed but their appeal was denied by Regional State Prosecutor Vicente E. Aragona for being filed out of time; motion for reconsideration was also denied.
- Prosecutor Aragona affirmed that evidence supported the occurrence of the stockholders’ meeting on October 16, 1996, referring to notices of meetings and registry receipts.
- He emphasized that the erroneous 1996 GIS was incorrect and worthless as evidence and did not establish a prima facie case for perjury.
- Secretary of Justice’s Resolutions
- The Secretary of Justice, through Undersecretary Regis V. Puno, dismissed petitioners’ appeal on October 11, 2000, finding no reversible error in the previous rulings.
- The motion for reconsideration was denied on August 15, 2001, by Undersecretary Manuel A. J. Teehankee for lack of new matters.
- Court of Appeals Decision
- Petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Secretary of Justice’s rulings on January 28, 2005.
- The Court agreed that no grave abuse of discretion was committed and that the evidence supported the meeting date on October 16, 1996, and election of respondents as board directors.
- It held that the element of willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood, necessary for perjury, was absent.
- Motion for reconsideration was denied on May 26, 2005.
- Petition to the Supreme Court
- Petitioners filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing willful and deliberate falsity based on non-compliance with MHADC by-laws, alleged incompetence of meeting notices, delay, and motive in correcting the GIS entries, and reliance on dismissed civil cases.
- They contended that the petitioners sufficiently established probable cause for perjury.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the finding that there was no probable cause to indict the private respondents for perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)