Lee Pue Liong vs. Chua Pue Chin Lee

A private prosecutor may intervene in the prosecution of a public crime like perjury where the offended party has a substantial personal interest and has not waived or reserved the civil action, because the civil action is deemed instituted with the criminal action, and the offended party's right to intervene exists to enforce civil liability born of the criminal act.

Petitioner, as President of Centillion Holdings, Inc. (CHI), filed a verified petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila seeking the issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 232238, claiming the original was lost from his custody. Respondent, CHI Treasurer and custodian of corporate documents, opposed the petition and produced the title in open court, proving it was never lost. The RTC set aside its initial order granting the re-issuance. Respondent subsequently filed a complaint-affidavit for perjury against Petitioner, alleging willful and deliberate assertions of falsehood under oath regarding the title's loss.

• Intra-Corporate Dispute: Petitioner and Respondent are siblings embroiled in an intra-corporate dispute over the CKC Group of Companies, including CHI. On July 19, 1999, Respondent and other siblings barricaded themselves inside a CKC factory, leading to separate criminal charges in Valenzuela City.
• The Petition for Re-Issuance: On June 14, 1999, Petitioner filed a verified petition with the RTC Manila for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate of TCT No. 232238, a property owned by CHI. Petitioner executed an Affidavit of Loss and testified ex-parte that the title was in his custody but was inadvertently lost from his files in May 1999. The RTC initially granted the petition on September 17, 1999.
• Opposition and Revocation: Respondent, joined by her brother, filed an Omnibus Motion opposing the petition, claiming Petitioner knew she possessed the title as CHI Treasurer. Respondent produced the owner's duplicate copy in open court. On November 12, 1999, the RTC recalled and set aside its September 17, 1999 Order.
• Perjury Charges: On May 9, 2000, Respondent filed a complaint-affidavit charging Petitioner with perjury, alleging that his statements in the verification, affidavit of loss, and testimony were willful and deliberate falsehoods. She claimed Petitioner intended to mortgage the property without her knowledge. The City Prosecutor of Manila filed two Informations for perjury against Petitioner before the MeTC of Manila, Branch 28.
• Motion to Exclude Private Prosecutor: During trial, Atty. Augusto M. Macam appeared as private prosecutor with the consent of the public prosecutor. Petitioner moved for his exclusion, arguing that perjury is a public crime with no private offended party. The MeTC denied the motion, a ruling subsequently affirmed by the CA.

• Nature of Perjury: Petitioner argued that perjury is a crime against public interest that offends only the State, not any private party, and thus no private prosecutor may intervene.
• Absence of Civil Liability: Petitioner maintained that no civil liability arises from perjury because there are no damages to compensate; Respondent did not allege damage requiring restitution, reparation, or indemnification.
• Misapplication of Precedent: Petitioner posited that Lim Tek Goan v. Yatco is inapplicable because that case involved grave threats where the private offended party had a civil interest, unlike the present case where Respondent suffered no damage.
• Lack of Corporate Authority: Petitioner asserted that Respondent is not the proper offended party as she was not authorized by CHI to intervene on its behalf.

• Right to Intervene: Respondent countered that the intervention of a private prosecutor is not prohibited by the rules, as she is an aggrieved party—being a stockholder, officer, and treasurer of CHI—and the private complainant.
• Applicability of Precedent: Respondent argued that pursuant to Lim Tek Goan v. Yatco, the right to intervene exists even if no civil liability is involved.

• Intervention in Public Crimes: Whether a private prosecutor may intervene in a criminal case for perjury, a crime against public interest, where the private complainant claims to be an aggrieved party.
• Authority to Intervene on Behalf of Corporation: Whether a stockholder/officer may intervene as private complainant in a perjury case involving a corporate property without explicit authorization from the corporation.

• Intervention in Public Crimes: The intervention of a private prosecutor in a perjury case was upheld. Under Section 16, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the offended party may intervene by counsel where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is deemed instituted with the criminal action. The offended party in a public crime includes the private individual whose person, right, honor, or property was directly injured by the punishable act. Respondent's personal credibility and reputation as CHI Treasurer, as well as her property rights, were directly threatened by the alleged perjurious statements. The right to intervene exists for the purpose of enforcing civil liability, provided there is no waiver or reservation of the civil action.
• Authority to Intervene on Behalf of Corporation: Respondent possesses a substantial personal interest, not merely a subordinate or inconsequential one. The alleged perjurious statements directly injured her personal credibility and reputation in the performance of her duties as Treasurer, and threatened her property rights and interests as a stockholder. She is an offended party in her own right, rendering corporate authorization unnecessary.

• Intervention of the Offended Party — An offended party may intervene in the prosecution of a criminal action by counsel, especially when the civil action for recovery of civil liability is deemed instituted with the criminal action. This right exists even in public crimes, provided the offended party has a legal right and substantial interest in the subject matter, and has not waived or reserved the civil action. The intervention is subject to the direction and control of the public prosecutor.
• Offended Party in Public Crimes — In the commission of a crime, whether public or private, the offended party includes the private individual to whom the offender is civilly liable, or whose person, right, honor, house, liberty, or property was actually or directly injured by the punishable act. The interest must be personal, substantial, and not a mere expectancy.

• "Under Section 16, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the offended party may also be a private individual whose person, right, house, liberty or property was actually or directly injured by the same punishable act or omission of the accused, or that corporate entity which is damaged or injured by the delictual acts complained of. Such party must be one who has a legal right; a substantial interest in the subject matter of the action as will entitle him to recourse under the substantive law, to recourse if the evidence is sufficient or that he has the legal right to the demand and the accused will be protected by the satisfaction of his civil liabilities."
• "The right reserved by the Rules to the offended party is that of intervening for the sole purpose of enforcing the civil liability born of the criminal act and not of demanding punishment of the accused. Such intervention, moreover, is always subject to the direction and control of the public prosecutor."

• Lim Tek Goan v. Yatco, 94 Phil. 197 (1953) — Followed. Established that the offended party's right to intervene by counsel is a matter of right, not mere tolerance, even in public crimes, provided there is no waiver or reservation of the civil action.
• Garcia v. Court of Appeals, 334 Phil. 621 (1997) — Followed. Rejected the theory that only the State is the offended party in public offenses like bigamy.
• Ramiscal, Jr. v. Hon. Sandiganbayan, 487 Phil. 384 (2004) — Followed. Defined the offended party who may intervene as one with a legal right and substantial interest, personal and not a mere expectancy.
• Chua v. Court of Appeals, 485 Phil. 644 (2004) — Followed. Allowed private prosecutors to actively participate in the trial of falsification cases where the offended party did not waive or reserve the civil action.

• Article 100, Revised Penal Code — Establishes the fundamental postulate that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable, serving as the basis for civil liability arising from crime.
• Section 1, Rule 111, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides that when a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for recovery of civil liability is deemed instituted with the criminal action unless waived, reserved, or instituted prior.
• Section 16, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Allows the offended party to intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action.
• Section 12, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Defines the offended party as the person against whom or against whose property the offense was committed.
• Article 183, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the crime of perjury in solemn affirmation, the offense charged in the underlying criminal cases.

Sereno, C.J. (Chairperson), Brion, Bersamin, Reyes