JURISPRUDENCE ON PREJUDICIAL QUESTION
RENATO S.D. DOMINGO on his own behalf and on behalf of his coheirs
of the late SPOUSES FELICIDAD DE DOMINGO and MACARIO C.
DOMINGO
vs.
SPOUSES ENGRACIA D. SINGSON and MANUEL F. SINGSON
G.R. No. 203287- deed of sale
April 5, 2017
First Issue: Suspension of the
proceedings in Criminal Case No.
137867 on the ground of prejudicial
Question
A prejudicial question is understood in law to be that which arises in a case
the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in said
case and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. The doctrine of
prejudicial question comes into play generally in a situation where civil and
criminal actions are pending and the issues involved in both cases are similar
or so closely related that an issue must be pre-emptively resolved in the civil
case before the criminal action can proceed. 53 The rationale behind the
principle of prejudicial question is to avoid two conflict decisions. 54
For a civil action to be considered prejudicial to a criminal case as to cause
the suspension of the criminal proceedings until the final resolution of the
civil case, the following requisites must -be present: (1) the civil case
involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution
would be based; (2) in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil
action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be
determined; and (3) jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in
another tribunal. 55
Based on the issues raised in both Civil Case No. 70898 and Criminal Case
No. 137867 against the Spouses Singson, and in the light of the foregoing
concepts of a prejudicial question, there indeed appears to be a prejudicial
question in the case at bar. The defense of the Spouses Singson in the civil
case for annulment of sale is that Engracia bought the subject property from
her parents prior to their demise and that their signatures appearing on the
Absolute Deed of Sale are true and genuine. Their allegation in the civil case
is based on the very same facts, which would be necessarily determinative of
their guilt or innocence as accused in the criminal case.
If the signatures of the Spouses Domingo in the Absolute Deed of Sale are
genuine, then there would be no falsification and the Spouses Singson would
be innocent of the offense charged. Otherwise stated, a
conviction on Criminal Case No. 137867, should it be allowed to proceed
ahead, would be a gross injustice and would have to be set aside if it were
finally decided in Civil Case No. 70898 that indeed the signatures of the
Spouses Domingo were authentic.
The petitioners' reliance on Section 356 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, in
relation to Article 3357 of the Civil Code, is misplaced. Section 3 provides
that a civil action for damages in cases provided under Articles 32, 33, 34 and
2176 of the Civil Code, which may also constitute criminal offenses, may
proceed independently of the criminal action. In instances where an
independent civil action is permitted, the result of the criminal action,
whether of acquittal or conviction, is entirely irrelevant to the civil action. 58
A prejudicial question is understood in law to be that which arises in a
case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue
involved in said case and the cognizance of which pertains to another
tribunal. The doctrine of prejudicial question comes into play generally
in a situation where civil and criminal actions are pending and the
issues involved in both cases are similar or so closely related that an
issue must be pre-emptively resolved in the civil case before the
criminal action can proceed. 53 The rationale behind the principle of
prejudicial question is to avoid two conflict decisions. 54
For a civil action to be considered prejudicial to a criminal case as to
cause the suspension of the criminal proceedings until the final
resolution of the civil case, the following requisites must -be present:
(1) the civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which
the criminal prosecution would be based; (2) in the resolution of the
issue or issues raised in the civil action, the guilt or innocence of the
accused would necessarily be determined; and (3) jurisdiction to try
said question must be lodged in another tribunal. 55
JM DOMINGUEZ AGRONOMIC COMPANY, INC., HELEN D.
DAGDAGAN, PATRICK PACIS, KENNETH PACIS, and SHIRLEY
DOMINGUEZ
vs.
CECILIA LICLICAN, NORMA D. ISIP, and PURITA DOMINGUEZ
G.R. No. 208587 : stockholders
July 29, 2015
As jurisprudence elucidates, a prejudicial question generally exists in a
situation where a civil action and a criminal action are both pending,
and there exists in the former an issue that must be pre-emptively
resolved before the latter may proceed, because howsoever the issue
raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative Juris et de
Jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case.24 The
rationale behind the principle is to avoid two conflicting
decisions,25 and its existence rests on the concurrence of two essential
elements: (i) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately
related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and (ii) the resolution
of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may
proceed.26
KRIZIA KATRINA TY-DE ZUZUARREGUI
vs.
THE HON. JOSELITO C. VILLAROSA, in his capacity as Presiding
Judge of Branch 66 of the RTC of Makati City, and FANNIE TORRES-TY
G.R. No. 183788: estate
April 5, 2010
For a prejudicial question in a civil case to suspend a criminal action, it
must appear not only that said civil case involves facts intimately
related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based,
but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil
case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be
determined.42 The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question
is to avoid two (2) conflicting decisions.
Thus, for a civil action to be considered prejudicial to a criminal case as
to cause the suspension of the criminal proceedings until the final
resolution of the civil case, the following requisites must be present: (1)
the civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the
criminal prosecution would be based; (2) in the resolution of the issue
or issues raised in the civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused
would necessarily be determined; and (3) jurisdiction to try said
question must be lodged in another tribunal.43
If the resolution of the issue in the civil action will not determine the
criminal responsibility of the accused in the criminal action based on
the same facts, or there is no necessity "that the civil case be
determined first before taking up the criminal case," the civil case does
not involve a prejudicial question.44 Neither is there a prejudicial
question if the civil and the criminal action can, according to law,
proceed independently of each other.45
DREAMWORK CONSTRUCTION, INC.
vs.
CLEOFE S. JANIOLA and HON. ARTHUR A. FAMINI
G.R. No. 184861: construction agreement
June 30, 2009
First off, it is a basic precept in statutory construction that a "change in
phraseology by amendment of a provision of law indicates a legislative
intent to change the meaning of the provision from that it originally
had."14 In the instant case, the phrase, "previously instituted," was
inserted to qualify the nature of the civil action involved in a prejudicial
question in relation to the criminal action. This interpretation is further
buttressed by the insertion of "subsequent" directly before the term
criminal action. There is no other logical explanation for the
amendments except to qualify the relationship of the civil and criminal
actions, that the civil action must precede the criminal action.
Thus, this Court ruled in Torres v. Garchitorena15 that:
Even if we ignored petitioners’ procedural lapse and resolved their
petition on the merits, we hold that Sandiganbayan did not abuse its
discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in denying their
omnibus motion for the suspension of the proceedings pending final
judgment in Civil Case No. 7160. Section 6, Rule lll of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure, as amended, reads:
Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. - A petition for
suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a
prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the
prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation. When
the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition to
suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before the
prosecution rests.
Sec. 7. Elements of prejudicial question. - The elements of a prejudicial
question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue
similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent
criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether
or not the criminal action may proceed.
Under the amendment, a prejudicial question is understood in law as
that which must precede the criminal action and which requires a
decision before a final judgment can be rendered in the criminal action
with which said question is closely connected. The civil action must be
instituted prior to the institution of the criminal action. In this case, the
Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan ahead of the complaint
in Civil Case No. 7160 filed by the State with the RTC in Civil Case
No. 7160. Thus, no prejudicial question exists. (Emphasis supplied.)
Additionally, it is a principle in statutory construction that "a statute
should be construed not only to be consistent with itself but also to
harmonize with other laws on the same subject matter, as to form a
complete, coherent and intelligible system."16 This principle is
consistent with the maxim, interpretare et concordare leges legibus est
optimus interpretandi modus or every statute must be so construed and
harmonized with other statutes as to form a uniform system of
jurisprudence.171 a vv p h i l
In other words, every effort must be made to harmonize seemingly
conflicting laws. It is only when harmonization is impossible that resort
must be made to choosing which law to apply.
In the instant case, Art. 36 of the Civil Code and Sec. 7 of Rule 111 of
the Rules of Court are susceptible of an interpretation that would
harmonize both provisions of law. The phrase "previously instituted
civil action" in Sec. 7 of Rule 111 is plainly worded and is not
susceptible of alternative interpretations. The clause "before any
criminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed" in Art. 36 of
the Civil Code may, however, be interpreted to mean that the motion to
suspend the criminal action may be filed during the preliminary
investigation with the public prosecutor or court conducting the
investigation, or during the trial with the court hearing the case.
This interpretation would harmonize Art. 36 of the Civil Code with
Sec. 7 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court but also with Sec. 6 of Rule
111 of the Civil Code, which provides for the situations when the
motion to suspend the criminal action during the preliminary
investigation or during the trial may be filed. Sec. 6 provides:
SEC. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question.—A petition for
suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a
prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the
prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation. When
the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition to
suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before the
prosecution rests.
Thus, under the principles of statutory construction, it is this
interpretation of Art. 36 of the Civil Code that should govern in order
to give effect to all the relevant provisions of law.
It bears pointing out that the circumstances present in the instant case
indicate that the filing of the civil action and the subsequent move to
suspend the criminal proceedings by reason of the presence of a
prejudicial question were a mere afterthought and instituted to delay the
criminal proceedings.
In Sabandal v. Tongco,18 we found no prejudicial question existed
involving a civil action for specific performance, overpayment, and
damages, and a criminal complaint for BP 22, as the resolution of the
civil action would not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused
in the criminal case. In resolving the case, we said:
Furthermore, the peculiar circumstances of the case clearly indicate that
the filing of the civil case was a ploy to delay the resolution of the
criminal cases. Petitioner filed the civil case three years after the
institution of the criminal charges against him. Apparently, the civil
action was instituted as an afterthought to delay the proceedings in the
criminal cases.19
Here, the civil case was filed two (2) years after the institution of the
criminal complaint and from the time that private respondent allegedly
withdrew its equipment from the job site. Also, it is worth noting that
the civil case was instituted more than two and a half (2 ½) years from
the time that private respondent allegedly stopped construction of the
proposed building for no valid reason. More importantly, the civil case
praying for the rescission of the construction agreement for lack of
consideration was filed more than three (3) years from the execution of
the construction agreement.
Evidently, as in Sabandal, the circumstances surrounding the filing of
the cases involved here show that the filing of the civil action was a
mere afterthought on the part of private respondent and interposed for
delay. And as correctly argued by petitioner, it is this scenario that Sec.
7 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court seeks to prevent. Thus, private
respondent’s positions cannot be left to stand.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs.
VICTORIA R. ARAMBULO and MIGUELARAMBULO, JR.
G.R. No. 186597: Estate; intra-corporate cases for annulment of sale
June 17, 2015
A prejudicial question is one that arises in a case the resolution of
which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the
cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. It is a question based
on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately
connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the
accused, and for it to suspend the criminal action, it must appear not
only that said case involves facts intimately related to those upon which
the criminal prosecution would be based but also that in the resolution
of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of
the accused would necessarily be determined.9
Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure prescribes
the elements that must concur in order for a civil case to be considered
a prejudicial question, to wit:
Section 7. Elements of prejudicial question. – The elements of a
prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action
involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue
determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.
Aptly put, the following requisites must be present for a civil action to
be considered prejudicial to a criminal case as to cause the suspension
of the criminal proceedings until the final resolution of the civil case:
(1) the civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which
the criminal prosecution would be based; (2) in the resolution of the
issue or issues raised in the civil action, the guilt or innocence of the
accused would necessarily be determined; and (3) jurisdiction to try
said question must be lodged in another tribunal.10
As correctly stated by the Court of Appeals, SEC Case No. 05-97-5659
does not present a prejudicial question to the criminal case for estafa. It
is an action for accounting of all corporate funds and assets of Anaped,
annulment of sale, injunction, receivership and damages. Even if said
case will be decided against respondents, they will not be adjudged free
from criminal liability. It also does not automatically follow that an
accounting of corporate funds and properties and annulment of
fictitious sale of corporate assets would result in the conviction of
respondents in the estafa case.
With respect to SEC Case No. 03-99-6259, however, we affirm the
Court of Appeals’ finding that a prejudicial question
exists.1âwphi1 The Complaint in SEC Case No. 03-99-6259 prays for
the nullification of the election of Anaped directors and officers,
including Buban. Essentially, the issue is the authority of the aforesaid
officers to act for and behalf of the corporation.
On the other hand, the issue in the criminal case pertains to whether
respondents committed estafa. Under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the
RPC, the elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are as follows:
(1) that the money, goods or other personal property is received by the
offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any
other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the
same; (2) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money
or property by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt; (3)
that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of
another; and (4) that there is demand by the offended party to the
offender.11
The elements of demand and misappropriation bear relevance to the
validity or invalidity of the authority of Anaped directors and officers.
In Omictin v. Court of Appeals,12 we held that since the alleged
offended party is the corporation, the validity of the demand for the
delivery rests upon the authority of the person making such a demand
on the company’s behalf. If the supposed authority of the person
making the demand is found to be defective, it is as if no demand was
ever made, hence the prosecution for estafa cannot prosper. The Court
added that mere failure to return the thing received for administration
or under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver or return the
same or deliver the value thereof to the owner could only give rise to a
civil action and does not constitute the crime of estafa.13
It is true that the accused may be convicted of the felony under Article
315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code if the prosecution
proves misappropriation or conversion by the accused of the money or
property subject of the Information. In a prosecution for estafa, demand
is not necessary where there is evidence of misappropriation or
conversion.14 The phrase, "to misappropriate to one’s own use" has
been said to include "not only conversion to one’s personal advantage,
but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without
right."15 In this case, the resolution of the issue of misappropriation by
respondents depends upon the result of SEC Case No. 03-99-6259. If it
is ruled in the SEC case that the present Anaped directors and officers
were not validly elected, then respondent Victoria may have every right
to refuse remittance of rental to Buban. Hence, the essential element of
misappropriation in estafa may be absent in this case.
In this connection, we find important the fact, noted by the CA, that:
It appears from the record of the case that Victoria Arambulo for the
last twenty (20) years had been tasked with the management and
collection of rentals of the real properties the Reyes siblings inherited
from their parents, Ana and Pedro Reyes.16
As earlier mentioned, SEC Case No. 03-99-6259 is a petition filed by
Victoria and her brothers Domingo and Reynaldo questioning the very
authority of their elder siblings Rodrigo and Emerenciana, as well as
the Anaped Board of Directors and Officers, including Buban to act for
and in behalf of the corporation. We find this issue consonant with the
provisions of the Corporation Code which provides in Section 23 that:
Sec. 23. The Board of Directors or Trustees. - Unless otherwise
provided in this Code, the corporate powers of all corporations formed
under this Code shall be exercised, all business conducted and all
property of such corporations controlled and held by the board of
directors or trustees to be elected from among the holders of stocks, or
where there is no stock, from among the members of the corporation,
who shall hold office for one (1) year and until their successors are
elected and qualified.
In Valle Verde Country Club, Inc. v. Africa,17 we said that:
The underlying policy of the Corporation Code is that the business and
affairs of the corporation must be governed by a board of directors
whose members have stood for election, and who have actually been
elected by the stockholders, on an annual basis. Only in that way can
the directors’ continued accountability to shareholders, and the
legitimacy of their decisions that bind the corporation’s stockholders,
be assured. The shareholder vote is critical to the theory that legitimizes
the exercise of power by the directors or officers over properties that
they do not own.
From the foregoing, it is clear that, should respondents herein prevail in
SEC Case No. 03-99-6259, then Buban, who does not own either by
himself or in behalf of Anaped which is the owner, the property
heretofore managed by Victoria, cannot demand remittance of the
rentals on the property and Victoria does not have the obligation to turn
over the rentals to Buban.
Verily, the result of SEC Case No. 03-99-6259 will determine the
innocence or guilt of respondents in the criminal case for estafa.
