G.R. No. 111244 - Alano vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioner Arturo Alano was facing a criminal case for estafa (Criminal Case No. 90-84933) for the alleged double sale of a parcel of land located in Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila.
It was alleged that on or about June 10, 1986, petitioner, by pretending still to be the owner of the property (despite having previously sold it), sold the same land a second time to Erlinda B. Dandoy for P87,900.00, thereby defrauding Roberto S. Carlos, from whom he had allegedly already sold the property for P30,000.00.
The criminal information charged petitioner with having willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously defrauded the private respondent of his rightful ownership/possession of the land.

Prior to the criminal proceedings, a civil case (Civil Case No. 55103) had been filed on March 1, 1985, by Roberto Carlos and Trinidad M. Carlos against petitioner.
The civil case sought the annulment of the purported second sale of the property on the ground that petitioner’s signature on the deed of absolute sale was allegedly forged, thereby rendering the sale fictitious and inexistent.
Petitioner argued that if his signature had indeed been found to be forged in the civil case, the criminal prosecution for estafa would have no basis to stand.

During the pre-trial conference in the criminal case, held on October 5, 1990, petitioner admitted to the validity of his signature on the first deed of sale with the private respondents.
Additionally, petitioner acknowledged his signature on twenty-three cash vouchers evidencing payments made by the private respondent, effectively binding him to his factual admissions.
These stipulations of fact were treated as judicial admissions, waiving his right to subsequently present evidence contrary to these statements.

Petitioner moved for the suspension of the criminal proceedings on the ground of a pending prejudicial question in the civil case, which allegedly implicated the nullity of the sale and his defense of forgery.
The trial court denied petitioner’s motion for suspension, and this denial was later affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals on July 26, 1993.
The appellate decision was rendered after finding that petitioner’s prior admissions during the pre-trial conference effectively waived his right to contest the authenticity of his signature.

Whether the pendency of Civil Case No. 55103, which involved the nullity of the sale and the alleged forgery of petitioner’s signature, constitutes a prejudicial question justifying the suspension of the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 90-84933.
Whether petitioner’s admission during the pre-trial conference, which established the validity of his signature and acceptance of the evidentiary cash vouchers, amounts to a waiver of his defense based on forgery, thereby negating the procedural bar to the criminal prosecution.