G.R. No. 162187 November 18, 2005
CRISTE B. VILLANUEVA, Petitioner, vs. THE HON. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE and HORST-KESSLER VON SPRENGEISEN, Respondents.

FACTS

The Refractories Corporation of the Philippines (RCP), represented by its Senior Vice President Criste Villanueva, filed an anti-dumping case against Hamburg Trading Corporation (HTC), represented by its President Horst-Kessler Von Sprengeisen, concerning importations of refractory bricks from Germany. The Bureau of Import Services (BIS) preliminarily found a prima facie case and set a normal value of DM 1,200 per metric ton. The parties subsequently negotiated a compromise agreement. Villanueva alleged that the final, notarized agreement, which incorporated the BIS finding of DM 1,200 as the normal value, was signed by Von Sprengeisen after review by his sales manager. The agreement was submitted to and approved by the Tariff Commission.
Later, HTC filed a motion to vacate the judgment, alleging fraud. In a supporting affidavit, Von Sprengeisen claimed he only agreed to a normal value of DM 1,050 and that the phrase “based on the findings of the BIS” was surreptitiously inserted into the final agreement without his knowledge, as he signed it without reading, believing it mirrored an earlier draft. Based on this affidavit, Villanueva filed a criminal complaint for perjury against Von Sprengeisen before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila.

ISSUE

Whether the Secretary of Justice correctly found no probable cause to charge respondent Von Sprengeisen with the crime of perjury.

RULING

Yes, the Secretary of Justice was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition, upholding the finding of no probable cause for perjury. The legal logic centers on the essential elements of the crime. For perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code to exist, the accused must have made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood under oath. A crucial element is that the statement must be absolutely false, not merely inaccurate due to innocent mistake or an erroneous opinion.
The Court ruled that Von Sprengeisen’s affidavit contained statements of belief and opinion regarding the negotiations and his understanding of the agreement’s terms, not demonstrably false statements of fact. His claim that he signed the document without reading it, while negligent, speaks to the issue of his consent and the document’s authenticity in the civil anti-dumping case, but does not necessarily constitute a criminal falsehood made with deliberate intent to mislead the court. The variance between his alleged prior agreement (DM 1,050) and the written terms (DM 1,200) presents a factual dispute over the meeting of minds, which is a matter for resolution in a civil action for annulment, not a basis for a criminal perjury charge. The investigating prosecutor correctly exercised discretion in determining that the affidavit did not manifestly and indubitably prove a deliberate falsehood required for probable cause. The Court will not interfere with such findings absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, which was not present.