Lee Pue Liong A.K.A. Paul Lee vs. Chua Pue Chin Lee

 

Lee Pue Liong A.K.A. Paul Lee vs. Chua Pue Chin Lee G.R. No. 181658, August 7, 2013 Villarama, Jr.,  J. FACTS:

Respondent in this case filed a complaint-affidavit accusing petitioner of perjury. This is in connection to the verified petition filed by petitioner with the RTC of Manila for the Issuance of an Owner’s Duplicate Copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) covering a property owned  by CHI. The petitioner declared in the Verification that said TCT was lost, when he knew fully well we ll that that resp respon onden dentt was was in po poss sses essi sion on of the the sa said id Owner Owner’s ’s Dupl Duplic icat atee Copy. Copy. Late Later, r, an information was filed against petitioner for perjury before the MeTC Manila. However, the  petitioner’s counsel moved that respondent and her lawyer in this case should be excluded ex cluded from  participating in the case since perjury is a public offense. The MeTC denied the motion, which was subsequently subsequently affirmed affirmed by the Court of Appeals ruling that "the offended party, who has neither reserved, waived, nor instituted the civil action may intervene, and such right to intervene exists even when no civil liability is involved." ISSUE:

Whether respondent can intervene in the trial of the criminal action for Perjury. RULING:

Yes, respondent can intervene in the trial of the criminal action for Perjury. Section 1, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, provides that “When “When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising arisi ng from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted 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, subject to the direction and control of the public pub lic prosecutor. In this case, respondent did not waive the civil action, nor did she reserve the right to institute it separately, nor institute the civil action for damages arising from the offense charged. Also, Als o, the statem statement ent of petit petition ioner er regard regarding ing his custod custody y of TCT No. 232238 232238 coveri covering ng CHI’s CHI’s  property and its loss through inadvertence, if found to be perjured is, without doubt, injurious to respondent’s personal credibility and reputation insofar as her faithful performance of the duties and responsibilities of a Board Member and Treasurer of CHI. Therefore, respondent and private prosecutor can intervene in the trial of the criminal action of Perjury.