Article 36 Prejudicial Questions- questions which must be decided before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed,

, shall be governed by the rules of court

which the Supreme Court shall promulgate which shall not be in conflict with the provisions of this code.

Case Facts Issues Held SC Decisions

Tuanda v. Sandiganbayan:
Petitioners institute a
certiorari/prohibition for
sandiganbayans orders dated Aug. 19,
1992 and May 13, 1993 in Criminal
Case No. 16936 denying suspension of
their arraignment.
Delia Estrellanes and BartolomeBinaohan were appointed 1. Whether or not 1.
industrial laborsectoral reps for Sangguniang Bayan of Jimalalud Sandiganbayan erred in
by Sec. Luis Santos and take out Feb 17 and 18 1989. However their decision for denying
Mayor Tuanda denied their designations as representatives. petitioners motion for
suspension for their
Respondents then filed a special civil action No. 9661 petition for arraignment.
mandamus for recognition as sec reps but was dismissed.
Thereafter, petitioners filed an action to declare null and void the 2. Whether the designation
designations of private respondents. of Respondents Bart 2.
Binaohan and Delia
Respondents then filed a criminal case against the petitioner for Estrellanes were was
not paying their salaries and benefits. valid.
Petitioners filed a motion for suspension for the criminal
proceedings on the ground of prejudicial question exist in the Civil
Case No. 9955 pending.
Sandiganbayan erred in their ruling since there SC orders respondent to
is clearly a prejudicial question in this case. The SET ASIDE criminal case
civil action needs to be determine whether the no. 16936 and enjoined
criminal case may proceed. If the court finds from proceeding with the
the designation of the two representatives to arraignment.
be null and void, then there is no more reason
for the criminal action to proceed.
The RTC on January 16, 1992 decided to declare
null and void ab initio the designations of
private respondents as sectoral representatives
for violation of sec 146 BP Blg. 337 for failing to
consult with the sector the sufficient number of
representation.

Beltran v. People:
Seeks to review and set aside the
order dated Jan. 28, 1999 isued by
Hon. Tuazon Jr. civil case to enjoined
Hon. Alden Cervantes from
proceeding with the criminal case of
concubinage on the ground of
prejudicial question for petition of
nullity of marriage.
Meynardo Beltran file a petition for nullity of marriage after 24
years of marriage with Charmain Felix.
Charmain answered with a criminal complaint for concubinage
alleging it was petitioner that left them for another woman.
Petitioner then filed a motion to defer proceedings since he
argued that there is a prejudicial question and that the pending of
the nullity of marriage is determinant whether he be liable for
concubinage.
1. Whether or not there is a 1. There is no prejudicial question involved in this SC orders Dismissed the
prejudicial question. case. Court held that in Domingo v. CA there petition for lack of merit.
must be evidences, testimonials or documents
to prove the existence of grounds of nullity and
needs not be limited to the final judgement of
the court.
2. Landicho v. Reloval Parties to the marriage
should not be permitted to judge for
themselves the nullity of their marriage. It must
be declared by the court. If no declaration by
the court it is presumed to be valid and anyone
who contracts a subsequent marriage will be
prosecuted.
 Case
PASI (Phil. Agila Satellite Inc.) v.
Josefina Lichauco:
Petition for review on certiorari seeks
the reversal of the decision dated Feb
21, 2000 of CA of the civil complaint
against respondents.
Yap v. Cabales:
Facts Issues Held SC Decisions
PASI is a duly organized operation of telecommunications carriers. 1. Whether Respondents 1. No. overnment immunity from suit SC Decision: Petition is
Concerned itself for launching a Filipino satellite in orbit. It seeks has immunity over the will not shield the public official Granted. Decision of CA
confirmation to designate 161 degrees East Longitude and 153 suit since respondent being sued if the government no is SET ASIDE and the RTC
degrees East Longitude for Philippine Satellites. alleges all their action is longer has an interest to protect in decision is REINSTATED.
in accordance to their the outcome of a suit; or if the
Respondent however, allegedly sabotage the business of PASI and official duties and said liability of the officer is personal
offered the slot to other bidding parties in December 1997 that suit is against the because it arises from a tortious act
despite prior assignment to said slot. state which may not be in the performance of his/her
sued. duties.ued for her acts committed in
PASI and De Guzman instituted a civil complaint against Lichauco excess of her authority, ultra vires
with 3 cause of action: a) Injunction for the award of orbital slot b) innature, and tortious in character.
declaration of the designation c) damages. 2. Director of the Bureau of
Telecommunications, et al. vs.
Lichauco then filed a motion to dismiss after failing to submit an Aligaen, etc., et al. 'Inasmuch as the
answer past the reglamentary period. State authorizes only legal acts by its
officers, unauthorized acts of
RTC denied the motion to dismiss stating, defense of state is government officials or officers are
contentious and can be resolve in litigations. RTC held that not acts of the State, and an action
respondent is being sued in her personal capacity. against the officials or officers by one
whose rights have been invaded or
violated by such acts, for the
protection of his rights, is not a suit
against the State within the rule of
immunity of the State from suit
Petitioner Jesse Y. Yap and his spouse Bessie Yap are engaged in 1. Whether or not there 1. None. A prejudicial question generally SC Decision: Petition is
the real estate business through theircompany Primetown exists a prejudicial exists in a situation where a civil action Denied. CA order is
Property Group. Yap purchased several real properties from a question that and a criminal action areboth pending, Affirmed.
certain Evelyn Te. Inconsideration of said purchases, petitioner necessitates the and there exists in the former an issue
issued several BPI postdated checks to Evelyn. suspension of the that must be preemptively resolved
Thereafter,spousesOrlando and MergylMirabueno and spouses proceedings inthe MTCC. before thelatter may proceed, because
Charlie and JovitaDimalanta, rediscounted thechecks from Evelyn. howsoever the issue raised in the civil
Some of the checks were dishonour by reason of account closed. action is resolved would bedeterminative
juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of
Despite of thedemand, Yap failedto pay the amounts represented the accused in the criminal case. The
by the said checks. Spouses Mirabueno filed a civilaction for rationalebehind the principle of prejudicial
collection of sum of money against Yap. Subsequently, the Office question is to avoid two conflicting
of the City Prosecutor of General Santos City filed several decisions. It has two essentialelements: (i)
information for violation of BP 22 against the petitioner. In the the civil action involves an issue similar
or intimately related to the issue raised
22criminal cases, Yap filed separate motions to suspend in the criminal action; and (ii) the
proceedings on account of the existence of aprejudicial question. resolution of such issue determines
The MCTC denied the motions for lack of merit. On appeal, the whether or not the criminal action may
RTC likewise deniedthe petition. CA rendered a Decision proceed.If both civil and criminal cases
dismissing the petition for lack of merit. The CA opined that
CivilCase Nos. 6231 and 6238 did not pose a prejudicial question
to the prosecution of the petitioner forviolation of B.P. Blg. 22.
Hence, this appeal.
have similar issues, or the issue in one is
intimately related to the issuesraised in
the other, then a prejudicial question
would likely exist, provided the other
element orcharacteristic is satisfied. It
must appear not only that the civil case
involves the same facts upon whichthe
criminal prosecution would be based, but
also that the resolution of the issues
raised in the civilaction 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 criminalaction based on
the same facts, or if there is no necessity
that the civil case be determined first
beforetaking up the criminal case, the civil
case does not involve a prejudicial
question. Neither is there aprejudicial
question if the civil and the criminal action
can, according to law, proceed
independently of each other.