Private Prosecutors in Perjury Cases: Upholding the Offended Party's Rights

The Supreme Court has clarified that even in crimes against public interest like perjury, the offended party may intervene through a private prosecutor, provided the intervention is subject to the control and supervision of the public prosecutor. This ruling in Lee Pue Liong v. Chua Pue Chin Lee (G.R. No. 181658, August 7, 2013) settles a recurring question in criminal procedure: does the private complainant have a right to participate when the offense is deemed to offend the State rather than any individual?

The Dispute Behind the Perjury Charges

The case arose from an intra-corporate conflict within the CKC Group of Companies. Petitioner Lee Pue Liong was the president of Centillion Holdings, Inc. (CHI), while respondent Chua Pue Chin Lee was a majority stockholder and treasurer. In June 1999, petitioner filed a verified petition with the Regional Trial Court of Manila seeking the issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy of a title covering CHI property, claiming the original had been lost. He submitted an affidavit of loss and testified under oath in support of the petition.

Respondent later opposed the petition, producing the original title in open court. The trial court recalled its earlier order. Respondent then filed a complaint-affidavit for perjury, alleging that petitioner knowingly made false statements under oath when he claimed the title was lost, when in fact respondent—as treasurer and custodian of CHI's documents—had possession of it. Two informations for perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code were filed against petitioner.

The Motion to Exclude the Private Prosecutor

During trial, petitioner moved to exclude respondent's counsel from participating as private prosecutor. The argument: perjury is a crime against public interest under the Revised Penal Code, with the State as the sole offended party. Since no private individual suffers damage, a private prosecutor has no right to intervene.

The Metropolitan Trial Court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court sustained these rulings.

The Right to Intervene Under the Rules

The Court anchored its decision on the Rules of Court. Under, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the offended party may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action. Under Section 12, Rule 110, the offended party is

The Court rejected the notion that only the State is the offended party in public offenses. Citing Garcia v. Court of Appeals (334 Phil. 621 [1997]), the Court explained that the offended party is the person to whom the offender is civilly liable, whether the crime is public or private. In Ramiscal, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan (487 Phil. 384 [2004]), the Court likewise recognized that a private individual whose rights or property were actually or directly injured by the offense may be an offended party, as may a corporate entity damaged by the acts complained of.

Civil Liability and the Offended Party's Interest

The Court noted that under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. When a crime is committed, the offender offends two entities: the State and the individual whose person, rights, honor, or property was directly injured.

In this case, petitioner's statements about his custody of the title and its loss—if found to be false—were injurious to respondent's credibility and reputation as a board member and treasurer of CHI. The potential injury to the corporation was also clear, as the court-ordered issuance of a new title was only prevented by respondent's timely discovery of the petition.

Even assuming no civil liability was alleged or proved, the Court invoked Lim Tek Goan v. Yatco (94 Phil. 197 [1953]): whether public or private crimes are involved, the intervention of the offended party by counsel is not a matter of tolerance but a right that must be respected. The intervention, however, is limited to enforcing civil liability and remains subject to the public prosecutor's direction and control.

Applying the Precedent

The Court also relied on Chua v. Court of Appeals (485 Phil. 644 [2004]), a closely analogous case involving falsification of public documents. There, the private complainant—also a corporate treasurer—was allowed to intervene through private prosecutors despite claims that no civil liability was proven. The Court held that where the offended party neither waives the civil action nor reserves the right to institute it separately, evidence should be allowed to establish the extent of injuries suffered, and the offended party has the right to intervene through private counsel.

Practical Takeaways

• The offended party in a criminal case—even one involving a public offense like perjury—may intervene through a private prosecutor.
• The right to intervene exists where the civil action is deemed instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives it, reserves it, or files it separately.
• A private prosecutor's participation is always subject to the direction and control of the public prosecutor.
• The offended party need not prove actual damages at the outset; evidence of civil liability may be presented during trial.
• Corporate officers who are complainants in criminal cases may intervene even without a formal board resolution, where their personal credibility and the corporation's interests are directly affected.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.