FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
148193
January 16, 2003
-versus-
RAFAEL JOSE
CONSING,
JR.,
Respondent.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
Before us is a Petition
for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside
the
May 31, 2001 decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals[2]
in CA-G.R. SP No. 63712, which reversed and set aside the January 23,
2001
order[3]
of the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite, Branch 21, in Criminal
Case
No. 7668-00 denying respondent’s motion for deferment of arraignment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sometime in February
1997, respondent Rafael Jose Consing, Jr. and his mother, Cecilia de la
Cruz,[4]
represented to Plus Builders, Inc. (PBI) that they are the true and
lawful
owners of a 42,443 square meter lot situated in Imus, Cavite and
covered
by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 687599 in the name of Cecilia de
la
Cruz. They further represented that they acquired said lot, which was
previously
covered by TCT No. 191408 from Juanito Tan Teng and Po Willie Yu.
Relying
on the representations of respondent and his mother, PBI purchased the
questioned lot.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In April 1999, PBI discovered
that respondent and his mother did not have a valid title over the
subject
lot. PBI came to know that Juanito Tan Teng and Po Willie Yu never sold
said lot to respondent and his mother and that TCT No. 191408 upon
which
TCT No. 687599 was based is not on file with the Register of Deeds.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In August 1999, PBI
was ousted from the possession of the disputed lot by Juanito Tan Teng
and Po Willie Yu. Despite written and verbal demands, respondent and
his
mother refused to return the amount of P13,369,641.79 alleged to have
been
initially paid by PBI.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On July 22, 1999, respondent
filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 68, an action
for "Injunctive Relief" docketed as Civil Case No. SCA 1759, against
PBI,
Unicapital Inc, Unicapital Realty Inc., Jaime Martires, Mariano D.
Martinez,
Cecilia de la Cruz and 20 other John Does.[5]
Respondent sought a declaration that he was merely an agent of his
mother,
Cecilia de la Cruz, and therefore was not under any obligation to PBI
and
to the other defendants on the various transactions involving TCT No.
687599.cralaw:red
On October 13, 1999,
PBI filed against respondent and his mother a complaint for "Damages
and
Attachment," docketed as Civil Case No. 99-95381, with Branch 12 of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila.[6]
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum shopping
and
pendency of Civil Case No. SCA 1759.[7]
On January 21, 2000,
a criminal case for estafa through falsification of public document was
filed against respondent Rafael Jose Consing, Jr. and his mother with
the
RTC of Imus, Cavite.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On April 7, 2000, respondent
filed a motion to defer arraignment on the ground of prejudicial
question,
i.e., the pendency of Civil Case Nos. SCA 1759 and 99-95381.[9]
On January 27, 2000, the trial court denied respondent’s motion.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A motion for reconsideration
thereof was likewise denied on February 27, 2001.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent filed a petition
for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order and/or writ of preliminary injunction with the Court of Appeals
seeking
to enjoin the arraignment and trial of the estafa through falsification
case.[11]
The Court of Appeals granted respondent’s prayer for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order in a resolution dated March 19, 2001.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On May 31, 2001, a decision
was rendered setting aside the January 27, 2000 order of the trial
court
and permanently enjoining it from proceeding with the arraignment and
trial
of the criminal case until the civil cases for Injunctive Relief and
for
Damages and Attachment shall have been finally decided. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, the People of
the Philippines, represented by the Solicitor General, filed the
instant
petition seeking the reversal of the May 31, 2001 decision of the Court
of Appeals.cralaw:red
The issue to be resolved
in this petition is whether or not the pendency of Civil Case Nos. SCA
1759 and 99-95381, for Injunctive Relief and for Damages and
Attachment,
is a prejudicial question justifying the suspension of the proceedings
in the criminal case for estafa through falsification of public
document,
filed against the respondent.cralaw:red
A prejudicial question
is defined as that which 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. The prejudicial question must be
determinative
of the case before the court but 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 but so intimately
connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the
accused.
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 action, 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.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
If both civil and criminal
cases have similar issues or the issue in one is intimately related to
the issues raised in the other, then a prejudicial question would
likely
exist, provided the other element or characteristic is satisfied. It
must
appear not only that the civil case involves the same facts upon which
the criminal prosecution would be based, but also that the resolution
of
the issues raised in the civil action would be necessarily
determinative
of the guilt or innocence of the accused. 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, therefore, the civil case does not involve a prejudicial
question.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the case at bar,
we find no prejudicial question that would justify the suspension of
the
proceedings in the criminal case. The issue in Civil Case No. SCA 1759
for Injunctive Relief is whether or not respondent merely acted as an
agent
of his mother, Cecilia de la Cruz; while in Civil Case No. 99-95381,
for
Damages and Attachment, the question is whether respondent and his
mother
are liable to pay damages and to return the amount paid by PBI for the
purchase of the disputed lot. 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 No. SCA 1759 for
Injunctive Relief is irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of the
respondent
in the criminal case for estafa through falsification of public
document.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Likewise, the resolution
of PBI’s right to be paid damages and the purchase price of the lot in
question will not be determinative of the culpability of the respondent
in the criminal case for even if PBI is held entitled to the return of
the purchase price plus damages, it does not ipso facto follow that
respondent
should be held guilty of estafa through falsification of public
document.
Stated differently, a ruling of the court in the civil case that PBI
should
not be paid the purchase price plus damages will not necessarily
absolve
respondent of liability in the criminal case where his guilt may still
be established under penal laws as determined by other evidence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, neither is
there a prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal action can,
according to law, proceed independently of each other.[15]
Under Rule 111, Section 3 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure,
in
the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code,
the
independent civil action may be brought by the offended party. It shall
proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a
preponderance
of evidence. In no case, however, may the offended party recover
damages
twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, in Rojas v. People,[16]
the petitioner was accused in a criminal case for violation of Article
319 of the Revised Penal Code, for executing a new chattel mortgage on
personal property in favor of another party without consent of the
previous
mortgagee. Thereafter, the offended party filed a civil case for
termination
of management contract, one of the causes of action of which consisted
of petitioner having executed a chattel mortgage while the previous
chattel
mortgage was still valid and subsisting. Petitioner moved that the
arraignment
and trial of the criminal case be held in abeyance on the ground that
the
civil case was a prejudicial question, the resolution of which was
necessary
before the criminal proceedings could proceed. The trial court denied
the
suspension of the criminal case on the ground that no prejudicial
question
exist. We affirmed the order of the trial court and ruled that: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
- the resolution of
the liability of the defendant in the civil case on the eleventh cause
of action based on the fraudulent misrepresentation that the chattel
mortgage
the defendant executed in favor of the said CMS Estate, Inc. on
February
20, 1957, that his D-6 "Caterpillar" Tractor with Serial No. 9-U-6565
was
"free from all liens and encumbrances" will not determine the criminal
liability of the accused in the said Criminal Case No. 56042 for
violation
of paragraph 2 of Article 319 of the Revised Penal Code. (i) That,
even granting for the sake of argument, a prejudicial question is
involved
in this case, the fact remains that both the crime charged in the
information
in the criminal case and the eleventh cause of action in the civil case
are based upon fraud, hence both the civil and criminal cases could
proceed
independently of the other pursuant to Article 33 of the new Civil Code
which provides: "In cases of defamation, fraud and physical injuries, a
civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the
criminal
action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and
shall
require only a preponderance of evidence." (j) That, therefore, the act
of respondent judge in issuing the orders referred to in the instant
petition
was not made with "grave abuse of discretion." chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the instant case,
Civil Case No. 99-95381, 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. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, in view of
all the foregoing, the instant petition is GRANTED. The May 31, 2001
decision
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 63712 is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE.
The permanent injunction issued by the Court of Appeals is LIFTED and
the
Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite, Branch 21 is ORDERED to proceed
with
the arraignment and trial in Criminal Case No. 7668-00.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman), Vitug,
Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Thirteenth Division, composed of Associate Justices: Martin S.
Villarama,
Jr. (Ponente), Eliezer R. De Los Santos (Member), and Conrado M.
Vasquez,
Jr. (Chairman).
[3]
Issued by Judge Norberto J. Quisumbing, Jr. (Rollo, p. 65).
[4]
Sometimes spelled as "dela Cruz" in the records.
[5]
Rollo, p. 38.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Rollo, p. 29.
[7]
Court of Appeals Rollo, p. 72.
[8]
Rollo, p. 49.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Rollo, p. 52.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Rollo, p. 74.
[11]
Court of Appeals Rollo, p. 94.
[12]
Rollo, p. 27.
[13]
Sabandal v. Tongco, et al., G.R. No. 124498, October 5, 2001, citing
Donato
v. Luna, 160 SCRA 441 [1988]; Quiambao v. Osorio, 158 SCRA 674 [1988];
Ras v. Rasul, 100 SCRA 125 [1980]; Prado v. People, 218 Phil. 573
[1984].
[14]
Sabandal v. Tongco, et al., supra, citing Alano v. Court of Appeals,
347
Phil. 549 [1997]; Benitez v. Concepcion, Jr., 112 Phil. 105 [1961]; Te
v. Court of Appeals, 346 SCRA 327 [2000]; Beltran v. People, 334 SCRA
106
[2000]; Isip v. Gonzales, 148-A Phil. 212 [1971].
[15]
Sabandal v. Tongco, et al., supra, citing Rojas v. People, 156 Phil.
224
[1974].
[16]
Supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |