Prejudicial question has been defined to be that which arises in a case, the resolution of

which (question) is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in said case, and the cognizance of
which pertains to another tribunal (Cuestion prejudicial, es la que surge en un pleito o causa,
cuya resolucion sea antecedente logico de la cuestion objeto del pleito o causa y cuyo
conocimiento corresponda a los Tribunales de otro orden o jurisdiccion X Enciclopedia
Juridica Espaola, p. 228). The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the
court; this is first element. Jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal;
this is the second element. In an action for bigamy, for example, if the accused claims that the
first marriage is null and void and the right to decide such validity is vested in another tribunal,
the civil action for nullity must first be decided before the action for bigamy can proceed; hence,
the validity of the first marriage is a prejudicial question.

-People v. Aragon

Justice Dizon, speaking for the Court, stated: "We have heretofore defined a prejudicial
question 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 we further said must be determinative of the case before the court, and
jurisdiction to try the same must be lodged in another court." 13 It is indispensable then for this
petition to succeed that the alleged prejudicial question must be determinative of the criminal
case before respondent Judge.

Zapanta v. Montesa,

We have heretofore defined a prejudicial question 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 (People vs. Aragon, G.R. No. L-5930, February 17, 1954). The
prejudicial question we further said must be determinative of the case before the court, and
jurisdiction to try the same must be lodged in another court (People vs. Aragon, supra). These
requisites are present in the case at bar. Should the question for annulment of the second
marriage pending in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga prosper on the ground that,
according to the evidence, petitioner's consent thereto was obtained by means of duress, force
and intimidation, it is obvious that his act was involuntary and can not be the basis of his
conviction for the crime of bigamy with which he was charged in the Court of First Instance of
Bulacan. Thus, the issue involved in the action for the annulment of the second marriage is
determinative of petitioner's guilt or innocence of the crime of bigamy. On the other hand, there
can be no question that the annulment of petitioner's marriage with respondent Yco on the
grounds relied upon in the complaint filed in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga is within
the jurisdiction of said court.

-Zapanta v. Montesa
 The general rule is where both a civil and a criminal case arising from the same facts
are filed in court, the criminal case takes precedence (Rule 107, sec. 1[b]). An exception to this
general rule would be if there exist prejudicial questions which should be resolved first before
action could be taken in the criminal case and when the law provides that both the civil and
criminal case can be instituted simultaneously (Art. 33, new Civil Code). A prejudicial question
has been defined as

. . . . One 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. (Civil Code Annotated by Padilla, Vol. I,
1956 Ed., p. 83; see also De Leon v. Mabanag, 70 Phil. 202, as to the definition of the term).

Under the foregoing doctrine, for a civil case to be considered prejudicial to a criminal
action as to cause the suspension of the latter pending its (civil case) final determination, it must
appear not only that the said civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which take
criminal prosecution would be based, but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised
in the aforesaid civil action the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be
determined. (D.S. Mendiola et al. v. Hon. H. Macadaeg, et al., G.R. No. L-16874, Feb. 27,
1961).

-Benitez v. Concepcion

The Supreme Court held that 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.

It stated that 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.

Thus, the existence of a prejudicial question in a civil case is alleged in the criminal case
to cause the suspension of the latter pending final determination of the former, the Supreme
Court added.

It stated that the essential elements of a prejudicial question as provided under Section 5,
Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Court are: [a] the civil action involves an issue similar or
intimately related to the issue in the criminal action; and [b] the resolution of such issue
determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.

-Quiambao v. Osorio, G.R. No. L-48157

 We have held that "for a civil case to be considered prejudicial to a criminal action as to
cause the suspension of the criminal action pending the determination of the civil action, it must
appear not only that the civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution is
based, but also that the resolution of the issues raised in said civil action would be necessarily
determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused".

It is the issue in the civil action that is prejudicial to the continuation of the criminal
action, not the criminal action that is prejudicial to the civil action.

-Yap v. Paras, GR. No. 101236