Case Summary (G.R. No. L-37945)
Factual Antecedents
Eriberto and his associates incorporated MFI in June 1990. On December 29, 1993, he filed with the SEC a petition for involuntary dissolution under PD 902-A, alleging that a Secretary’s Certificate and a Deed of Exchange with Cancellation of Usufruct, both dated December 5, 1992, were simulated and had defrauded minor Gilberto of his land without consideration.
Initiation of Perjury Proceedings
Cesar Masangkay, a respondent in the SEC case, charged Eriberto with perjury before the Rizal Provincial Prosecutor, contending that Eriberto falsely swore that no December 5, 1992 meeting occurred and that the Deed of Exchange was fictitious. The complaint was initially dismissed, reinstated by the Department of Justice, and an information was filed in the MeTC of Mandaluyong City for perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code.
Trial Court Findings
The prosecution presented Cesar’s testimony and the meeting minutes bearing Eriberto’s signature to contradict the petition for dissolution. Eriberto and corporate secretary Elizabeth testified that no meeting took place, no notice was sent, and no stock certificates were ever issued to Gilberto. The MeTC found the prosecution proved deliberate falsehood and convicted Eriberto of perjury.
Appellate Rulings
The RTC affirmed the MeTC conviction. The Court of Appeals likewise upheld Eriberto’s guilt but reduced the penalty to six months and one day of prision correccional minimum under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. A motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to this petition for review.
Legal Framework
Under the 1987 Constitution, criminal guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Article 183 RPC defines perjury as a knowingly untruthful sworn statement on a material matter before a competent officer. Section 105 and 121 of the Corporation Code prescribe the form and verification of petitions for involuntary dissolution. Article 1409 of the Civil Code renders simulations and fictitious contracts void.
Materiality of the Alleged Falsehoods
Both disputed statements—the nonexistence of the December 5, 1992 meeting and the fictitious nature of the Deed of Exchange—were foundational to Eriberto’s petition for corporate dissolution. They directly impacted the existence of illegal or fraudulent corporate acts justifying dissolution, satisfying the materiality requirement for perjury.
Lack of Proof of Deliberate Falsehood
The prosecution relied chiefly on the minutes of the alleged meeting, a statement contradictory to Eriberto’s sworn petition. Absent were disinterested witnesses, meeting notices, or other evidence aliunde to establish that the meeting actually occurred. The contradiction alone cannot identify which statement is false. Under established doctrin
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-37945)
Factual Background
- In June 1990, Eriberto S. Masangkay, his common-law wife Magdalena Ricaros, Cesar Masangkay, Elizabeth Masangkay, and Eric Dullano incorporated Megatel Factors, Inc. (MFI).
- On December 29, 1993, Eriberto filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) a verified Petition for Involuntary Dissolution of MFI under Section 6 of PD 902-A (Case No. 12-93-4650).
- The petition alleged that a Secretary’s Certificate dated September 1, 1993 was fictitious, that no Board meeting took place on December 5, 1992, and that a “Deed of Exchange with Cancellation of Usufruct” was simulated, defrauding minor Gilberto Ricaros Masangkay of his property without consideration.
- Article 1409 of the Civil Code was cited to show the contract’s inexistence and voidness from the beginning; the SEC dissolution case remains pending (transferred to RTC under RA 8799).
Involuntary Dissolution Petition
- Eriberto invoked Section 105 of the Corporation Code, alleging illegal, fraudulent, dishonest and oppressive acts by MFI directors.
- He characterized the Secretary’s Certificate and the Deed of Exchange as “absolutely simulated or fictitious” and “void,” depriving a minor of property without any MFI stock issuance.
- The petition sought dissolution of MFI and relief under Sections 105 and 121 of the Corporation Code.
Perjury Complaint and Jurisdictional Contest
- Cesar Masangkay, a respondent in the SEC case, filed a criminal complaint for perjury against Eriberto before the Rizal Provincial Prosecutor, alleging willful falsehood in the SEC petition.
- Eriberto invoked primary jurisdiction of the SEC and raised a prejudicial-question defense; the assistant prosecutor dismissed the complaint, but the DOJ reinstated it.
- Chief State Prosecutor De Guia ruled that perjury under RPC Article 183 falls outside the SEC’s enforcement jurisdiction and ordered preliminary investigation.
Information, Motion to Quash, and Lower-Court Rulings
- An information was filed as Criminal Case No. 56495 in MeTC Mandaluyong, charging Eriberto with perjury for two willful false statements:
a) denial of the December 5, 1992 Board meeting, and
b) denial that the Deed of Exchange was fictitious. - Eriberto moved to quash on grounds of SEC primary jurisdiction and pending SEC proceedings as prejudicial questions; MeTC denied the motion.
- Petitions for certiorari to the RTC (Pasig–Branch 158) and the CA were dismissed; Eriberto w