Scribd
Upload
153 views2 pages

12 Unicapital Vs Consing Sr. G.R. No. 175277 September 11, 2013

Rafael Jose-Consing Jr. obtained loans totaling 18 million pesos from Unicapital secured by his mother Cecilia de la Cruz's property. Unicapital later discovered the title was under different names. Unicapital sued Consing for recovery while also filing criminal charges for estafa. Consing sought to defer the criminal case due to the civil cases. The court initially suspended the criminal case due to prejudicial question from the civil cases but the CA reversed, finding no prejudicial question existed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding an independent civil case for fraud does not raise a prejudicial question to stop a criminal prosecution for the same, as the civil result would not determine criminal guilt.

Uploaded by

Patrick Dag-um Macalolot
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
153 views2 pages

12 Unicapital Vs Consing Sr. G.R. No. 175277 September 11, 2013

Rafael Jose-Consing Jr. obtained loans totaling 18 million pesos from Unicapital secured by his mother Cecilia de la Cruz's property. Unicapital later discovered the title was under different names. Unicapital sued Consing for recovery while also filing criminal charges for estafa. Consing sought to defer the criminal case due to the civil cases. The court initially suspended the criminal case due to prejudicial question from the civil cases but the CA reversed, finding no prejudicial question existed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding an independent civil case for fraud does not raise a prejudicial question to stop a criminal prosecution for the same, as the civil result would not determine criminal guilt.

Uploaded by

Patrick Dag-um Macalolot
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

RAFAEL JOSE-CONSING, JR., Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 161075/ July 15, 2013

Facts:

Petitioner negotiated with and obtained for himself and his mother, Cecilia de la Cruz various loans
totaling P18,000,000.00 from Unicapital secured by a real estate mortgage constituted on a parcel of
land registered under the name of Cecilia. In accordance with its option to purchase the mortgaged
property, Unicapital agreed to purchase one-half of the property for a total consideration of
P21,221,500.00. Payment was effected by off-setting the amounts due to Unicapital under the
promissory notes of de la Cruz and Consing in the amount of P18,000,000.00 and paying an
additional amount of P3,145,946.50. The other half of the property was purchased by Plus Builders, a
joint venture partner of Unicapital. Before Unicapital and Plus Builders could develop the property,
they learned that the title to the property was really TCT No. 114708 in the names of Po Willie Yu
and Juanito Tan Teng, the parties from whom the property had been allegedly acquired by de la Cruz.
The title held by De la Cruz appeared to be spurious. On its part, Unicapital demanded the return of
the total amount of P41,377,851.48 that had been paid to and received by de la Cruz and Consing, but
the latter ignored the demands.

Consing filed in the Pasig City RTC for injunctive relief, thereby seeking to enjoin Unicapital from
proceeding against him for the collection of the P41,377,851.48 on the ground that he had acted as a
mere agent of his mother. On the same date, Unicapital initiated a criminal complaint for estafa
through falsification of public document against Consing and de la Cruz. Unicapital sued Consing for
the recovery of a sum of money and damages, with an application for a writ of preliminary
attachment.

Consing moved to defer his arraignment in the criminal case on the ground of existence of a
prejudicial question due to the pendency of the civil cases.

The RTC issued an order suspending the proceedings in the Makati criminal case on the ground of the
existence of a prejudicial question, and the RTC denied the Prosecution’s motion for reconsideration.
The CA promulgated its decision, dismissing the petition for certiorari and upholding the RTC’s
questioned orders. The CA amended its decision, reversing itself.

Consing filed a motion for reconsideration, but the CA denied the motion through the second assailed
resolution. Hence, this appeal by petition for review on certiorari.

Issue:

Whether or not there is an existence of a prejudicial question that warranted the suspension of the
proceedings in the Makati criminal case?

Held:

NO. An independent civil action based on fraud initiated by the defrauded party does not raise a
prejudicial question to stop the proceedings in a pending criminal prosecution of the defendant for
estafa through falsification. This is because the result of the independent civil action is irrelevant to
the issue of guilt or innocence of the accused.

It is well settled that a civil action based on defamation, fraud and physical injuries may be
independently instituted pursuant to Article 33 of the Civil Code, and does not operate as a prejudicial
question that will justify the suspension of a criminal case.

In the instant case for Damages and Attachment on account of the alleged fraud committed by
respondent and his mother in selling the disputed lot to PBI is an independent civil action under
Article 33 of the Civil Code. As such, it will not operate as a prejudicial question that will justify the
suspension of the criminal case at bar.

In the case at bar, we find no prejudicial question that would justify the suspension of the proceedings
in the criminal case. Even if respondent is declared merely an agent of his mother in the transaction
involving the sale of the questioned lot, he cannot be adjudged free from criminal liability. An agent
or any person may be held liable for conspiring to falsify public documents.

Hence, the determination of the issue involved in Civil Case for Injunctive Relief is irrelevant to the
guilt or innocence of the respondent in the criminal case for estafa through falsification of public
document.

You might also like