Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

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

    Uploaded by

    Jaen Tajanlangit
    Lee Pue Liong was accused of perjury by Chua Pue Chin Lee regarding a property title. Lee claimed the title was lost, but Chin Lee was in possession of it. Chin Lee filed a complaint and perjury charges were brought against Lee. Lee argued Chin Lee should not be allowed to intervene in the criminal trial. However, the court ruled that as the offended party, Chin Lee could intervene, even without civil liability, as the alleged perjury was injurious to her credibility and reputation. The ruling held that an offended party can intervene in a criminal trial for perjury if they did not waive or reserve civil action and the alleged offense was injurious to them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

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

    Uploaded by

    Jaen Tajanlangit
    2K views2 pages
    Lee Pue Liong was accused of perjury by Chua Pue Chin Lee regarding a property title. Lee claimed the title was lost, but Chin Lee was in possession of it. Chin Lee filed a complaint and perjury charges were brought against Lee. Lee argued Chin Lee should not be allowed to intervene in the criminal trial. However, the court ruled that as the offended party, Chin Lee could intervene, even without civil liability, as the alleged perjury was injurious to her credibility and reputation. The ruling held that an offended party can intervene in a criminal trial for perjury if they did not waive or reserve civil action and the alleged offense was injurious to them.

    Original Title

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

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Lee Pue Liong was accused of perjury by Chua Pue Chin Lee regarding a property title. Lee claimed the title was lost, but Chin Lee was in possession of it. Chin Lee filed a complaint and perjury charges were brought against Lee. Lee argued Chin Lee should not be allowed to intervene in the criminal trial. However, the court ruled that as the offended party, Chin Lee could intervene, even without civil liability, as the alleged perjury was injurious to her credibility and reputation. The ruling held that an offended party can intervene in a criminal trial for perjury if they did not waive or reserve civil action and the alleged offense was injurious to them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views2 pages

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

    Uploaded by

    Jaen Tajanlangit
    Lee Pue Liong was accused of perjury by Chua Pue Chin Lee regarding a property title. Lee claimed the title was lost, but Chin Lee was in possession of it. Chin Lee filed a complaint and perjury charges were brought against Lee. Lee argued Chin Lee should not be allowed to intervene in the criminal trial. However, the court ruled that as the offended party, Chin Lee could intervene, even without civil liability, as the alleged perjury was injurious to her credibility and reputation. The ruling held that an offended party can intervene in a criminal trial for perjury if they did not waive or reserve civil action and the alleged offense was injurious to them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    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 that respondent was in possession of the said Owner’s Duplicate Copy. Later, 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 from
    participating in the case since perjury is a public offense. The MeTC denied the motion, which
    was subsequently 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 a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability
    arising from the offense charged shall be deemed 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 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, the statement of petitioner regarding his custody of TCT No. 232238 covering 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.

    You might also like