Case Summary (G.R. No. L-50441-42)
Key Dates and Applicable Constitution
Relevant dates recorded in the proceedings: April 27, 1978 (civil complaint filed); September 5, 1978 (criminal information filed); November 6, 1978 (motion to suspend criminal action filed by petitioner); December 12, 1978 (respondent judge’s order denying motion); May 16, 1979 (temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme Court); September 18, 1980 (Supreme Court decision).
Applicable constitution for the decision: the 1973 Philippine Constitution (operative at the time of the Supreme Court’s ruling).
Procedural History
Luis Pichel filed Civil Case No. 73 praying for nullification of a deed of sale and for recognition of a prior deed in his favor. Defendants (the Ras spouses) denied selling the property to Pichel and alleged the signatures in the deed in his favor were forged. While Civil Case No. 73 was pending, the Provincial Fiscal filed an Information for estafa (double sale) against Alejandro Ras, docketed as Criminal Case No. 240, arising from the same subject matter. Petitioner moved in the criminal case to suspend proceedings on the ground that a prejudicial question existed in the civil action; the trial judge denied that motion by order dated December 12, 1978. The petitioner sought review in the Supreme Court, which issued a temporary restraining order and later rendered the present decision.
Legal Issue Presented
Whether the civil action (Civil Case No. 73) raised a prejudicial question that required suspension of the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 240 until the civil question was finally resolved.
Definition and Legal Standard for a Prejudicial Question
A prejudicial question is one that arises in another case whose resolution is a logical antecedent to the issue before the court and is cognizable by another tribunal. The question must be determinative of the case at hand, and the authority to decide it must lie with a different court. It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime yet so intimately connected with it that resolution of that fact determines the accused’s guilt or innocence. For a civil case to be prejudicial to a criminal action and justify suspension, two elements must coexist: (1) the civil case involves the same facts as those underlying the criminal prosecution; and (2) resolution of the issues raised in the civil action would necessarily determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Application of the Standard to the Facts
The petitioner in the civil action (as defendant in Civil Case No. 73) expressly alleged that the deed of sale in favor of Pichel was fictitious and that the signatures were forged. That civil defense directly challenges the existence and validity of the alleged prior sale upon which the criminal charge of double sale (estafa) is predicated. If the civil court determines that the alleged prior sale in favor of Pichel was void or forged, there would be no double sale and consequently no estafa. Therefore, the resolution of the civil action is logically antecedent and determinative of the central factual question in the criminal prosecution.
Solicitor General’s Position
The Solicitor General concurred with the petition for suspension, reasoning that the truth or falsity of the petitioner’s claim in the civil action (that he never sold the property and that signatures were forged) must be determined first. If that claim is true, no double sale occurred, and the criminal charge cannot stand. The Solicitor General thus agreed that the civil question is distinct yet so intimately connected with the criminal charge as to determine the accused’s guilt or innocence.
Court’s Holding and Rationale
The Supreme Court found that a prejudicial question existed because the petitioner's claim of forgery and non-sale in Civil Case No. 73 in
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-50441-42)
Case Caption, Court, and Decision Date
- Case reported at 188 Phil. 226, First Division, G.R. No. L-50441-42.
- Decision promulgated September 18, 1980.
- Ponencia authored by Justice Teehan Kee (TEEHANKEE, J.).
- Concurring Justices: Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ.
Nature of Proceedings and Relief Sought
- Original petition: A petition filed to review and set aside the order of respondent Judge dated December 12, 1978 in Criminal Case No. 240 of the Court of First Instance of Basilan.
- Relief sought by petitioner Alejandro Ras: To set aside denial of his motion to suspend proceedings in the criminal case on the ground that a prejudicial question existed in Civil Case No. 73 of the same court.
- Result: The Supreme Court found the petition meritorious, granted the petition, set aside the questioned order, and issued injunctive relief as described in the decision.
Chronology of Antecedent Facts
- On or about April 27, 1978: Luis Pichel filed a complaint against petitioner Alejandro Ras and a certain Bienvenido Martin before the Court of First Instance of Basilan, docketed as Civil Case No. 73.
- Prayer in Civil Case No. 73: Nullification of a deed of sale executed by Alejandro Ras in favor of Bienvenido Martin and declaration that a prior deed of sale allegedly executed in favor of plaintiff Pichel was valid.
- Defendants’ answer in Civil Case No. 73: The Ras spouses alleged they never sold the property to Pichel and that the signatures in the deed of sale in favor of Pichel were forgeries; thus, the alleged deed sought to be declared valid was alleged to be fictitious and inexistent.
- While Civil Case No. 73 was being tried: The Provincial Fiscal of Basilan filed, on or about September 5, 1978, an Information for estafa (double sale) in the same court against Alejandro Ras, arising from the same alleged double sale subject matter; docketed as Criminal Case No. 240.
- November 6, 1978: Petitioner, through counsel, filed a "Motion for Suspension of Action" in Criminal Case No. 240, asserting that the same facts and issues were involved in both the civil and criminal cases and that the civil case’s resolution would necessarily determine his guilt or innocence.
- December 4, 1978: The Provincial Fiscal of Basilan filed an opposition to the motion for suspension.
- December 12, 1978: The respondent judge issued an order denying the motion, concluding that there was no prejudicial question.
- Subsequent proceedings: Petitioner filed the present petition for review with the Supreme Court challenging the trial court’s denial of suspension.
Legal Concept: Definition and Requirements of a Prejudicial Question (as stated in the decision)
- Definition: A prejudicial question is one which arises in a case and the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in another case, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal.
- Essential characteristics:
- The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court.
- The jurisdiction to try and resolve the question must be lodged in another court or tribunal.
- It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime yet so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused.
- For a civil case to be considered prejudicial to a criminal action and to warrant suspension of the criminal action pending resolution of the civil case:
- It must appear that the c