Court dismisses perjury case versus Castro

CEBU, Philippines - The perjury case against Cebu City Prosecutor Mary Ann Castro filed by the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas was dismissed by the court.

Judge Anacleto Debalucos of the Municipal Trial Court of Barili dismissed the case after he did not find any elements of perjury.

 Subsequently, Debalucos granted the demurrer to evidence filed by Castro and ordered the release of the bail bond posted by Castro.

Castro had told the court that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The anti-graft office filed a perjury case against Castro for “knowingly making untruthful statement under oath” in the verification and certification against forum shopping in her petition for annulment of marriage in Barili.

Before the arraignment of the case, Castro filed a motion to dismiss the case, attaching the affidavit of desistance of the private complainants, Jake Yu and Nanak Donsaint Yu.

However, the motion of Castro was denied by the court after the prosecution opposed. Castro asked for reconsideration but it was likewise denied by the court.

During the arraignment of Castro she pleaded not guilty.

To prove her guilt, the prosecution presented two witnesses – lawyer Cheryl Bueno, Branch Clerk of Court of RTC-56 of Mandaue City and lawyer Rhoda Razonable, Clerk of Court of RTC-60 in Barili.

The prosecution showed Castro did file a verified petition for declaration of nullity of marriage against her husband, Rocky Rommel Roa, on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of Family Code before RTC Mandaue in 2000.

On December 11, 2003, Castro filed a motion to dismiss petition and the court dismissed it on March 10, 2004.

But prior to the decision of the court, Castro filed another verified petition for annulment of marriage against her husband on the ground of fraud Articles 45 and 46 of the Family Code at RTC-60.

The prosecution said in the verification and certification against forum shopping portion of Castro’s second petition, she failed to mention the pendency of her first petition for annulment.

But Debalucos, after a careful examination of the facts, found that the petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage filed in RTC-56 Mandaue City and in RTC-60 Barili are different.

“The petition filed in RTC Mandaue was for the declaration of nullity of marriage for the grounds of psychological incapacity and in RTC Barili the petition filed was on the ground of fraud of the Family Code,” Debalucos said.

 “In short, forum shopping does not exist in the two petitions,” Debalucos ruled. — (FREEMAN)