Case Digest (G.R. No. 168301)
Facts:
Antonio B. Monfort III and Ildefonso B. Monfort filed on 28 October 1998 a letter-complaint for perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code before the City Prosecutor of Cadiz against Ma. Antonia M. Salvatierra et al., alleging false statements in counter-affidavits that the 1996 annual stockholders' meeting of the Monfort Hermanos Agricultural Development Corporation (MHADC) was held on 16 October 1996 and that respondents were elected directors then, contrary to the 1996 GIS showing 27 November 1996.
The Investigating Prosecutor dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause on 14 April 1999; the Regional State Prosecutor denied due course and later dismissed reconsideration; the Secretary of Justice denied petitioners' appeals in resolutions dated 11 October 2000 and 15 August 2001; the Court of Appeals affirmed on 28 January 2005 and denied reconsideration on 26 May 2005; the petition under Rule 45 was thereafter brought to this Court.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the Secretary of Justice's finding that there was no probable cause to indict the private respondents for perjury?
Ruling:
The petition was DENIED and the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 67109 dated 28 January 2005 and 26 May 2005 were AFFIRMED, with costs against petitioners. The Court found no reversible or grave abuse of discretion by the prosecutors or the Secretary of Justice in declining to charge respondents.
Ratio:
The Court reiterated that a preliminary investigation's purpose is to determine whether facts engender a well-founded belief that a crime was committed and that the respondent is probably guilty, and that prosecutors enjoy wide discretion in such determinations. Perjury under Article 183 requires a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood; mere negligence, good-faith belief, or reliance on an agent (the corporate accountant LDA) negates the requisite malice. The record showed patent errors in the 1996 GIS, timely corrections by LDA and the SEC, and documentary support for the respondents' claim of a 16 October 1996 meeting, so the non-finding of probable cause was supported by evidence and not a grave abuse of discretion.
Doctrine:
- Probable cause for filing a criminal information exists when facts engender a well-founded belief that a crime was committed and the respondent is probably guilty.
- (Get Pro to unlock 4 more doctrines)