PERSONS ARTICLE 36 — PREJUDICIAL QUESTION

TITLE: G.R No. 148193

PEOPLE v. CONSING, JR
Date: January 16, 2003
Author: Daniella Glean
DOCTRINE
The determination of the issue involved in a civil case is irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of
the respondent in the criminal case

There is no prejudicial action if the civil and criminal action can proceed independently of each
other
FACTS:
Case timeline:
1. Respondent Raphael Jose Consing Jr and his mother, Cecilia de la Cruz, represented to
Plus Builders, Inc. (PBI) that they are the true and lawful owner of a parcel of land
situated in Imus, Cavite, and acquired it from Juanito Tan Teng (Juanito) and Po Willie
Yu (Po). Relying on the representations, PBI purchased the questioned lot.
2. Later, PBI discovered that respondent and his mother did not have a valid title over the
subject lot, and it was never sold to them by Juanito and Po. As a result thereof PBI was
ousted from the possession of the disputed lot.
3. PBI demanded from respondent and his mother to return the amount of P 13,369,641.79
alleged to have been initially paid but to no avail.
4. Respondent filed an action for Injunctive Relief (court order demanding that one party
stop doing something that is damaging to another party) against PBI and other
defendants and sought a declaration that he was merely an agent of his mother and
therefore was not under any obligation to PBI and other defendants on the various
transactions.
5. Later, PBI filed against respondent and his mother a complaint for Damages and
Attachment. However, respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum
shopping and the pendency of the action for Injunctive Relief.
6. A criminal case for estafa through falsification of public document was filed against
respondent and his mother. Respondent, however, filed a motion to defer arraignment
on the ground of prejudicial question.
7. RTC denied respondents motion.
8. CA set aside order of the RTC, and permanently enjoining the latter from proceeding
until the civil cases for injunction and for damages and attachment shall have been
finally decided.
ISSUE/S:
 1. Whether or not the pendency of an action for Injunctive Relief, and for Damages and
Attachment is a prejudicial question justifying the suspension of the proceedings in the
criminal case - NO
RATIO:
ACTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1. The issue here is whether or not respondent merely acted as an agent of his mother.
Hence, even if respondent is declared merely an agent of his mother in the sale of the
questioned lot, he cannot be adjudged free from criminal liability.
2. An agent or any person may be held liable for conspiring to falsify public documents.
Hence, the determination of the issue involved in herein civil case is irrelevant to the
guilt or innocence of the respondent in the criminal case for estafa through falsification
of public documents.
ACTION FOR DAMAGES AND ATTACHMENT
1. The issue here is whether or not respondent and his mother are liable to pay damages
and to return the amount paid by PBI for the purchase of the disputed lot.
2. The resolution of PBI’s right to be paid damages and the purchase price will not be
determinative of the culpability of the respondent in the criminal case for even if PBI is
held entitled to return 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.
3. Furthermore, there is no prejudicial action if the civil and criminal action can proceed
independently of each other. And since the civil case for damages and attachment on
account of the alleged FRAUD is an independent civil action under Article 33, it will
not operate as prejudicial question.
RULING:
Wherefore, in view of all the foregoing, the instant petition is granted. The decision of
the Court of Appeals is reversed and set aside.
NOTES:
 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. It 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.

Requisites of prejudicial question:

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
PERSONS ARTICLE 36 — PREJUDICIAL QUESTION
TITLE: G.R No. 112381
ISABELO APA, et al vs. HON. R.F.
Date: March 20, 1995
FERNANDEZ, et al.
Author: Daniella Glean
DOCTRINE
Ownership is the pivotal question hence the proceeding in criminal case must in the meantime
be suspended since resolution of this question would necessarily be determinative of accused’s
criminal liability
FACTS:
Case timeline:
1. During the year of 1990, a civil case was filed by the petitioners (Apa) concerning the
ownership of the subjected lot. Petitioners seek a declaration of nullity of TCT (title) of
Rosita Tigol, private respondent, and the partition of the subjected lot among petitioners
and respondents
2. During the year of 1993 or during the pendency of the civil case, a criminal case was
filed by the private respondents-spouses Tigol against the petitioners for violating the
Anti-Squatting Law.
3. Respondents alleged in their information that petitioners occupy and possess a portion
of her real property where they constructed their houses against their will and without
the knowledge and consent of the owners.
4. Petitioners moved for the suspension of the criminal case on the ground that there was a
prejudicial question in another civil case which was filed during the year of 1990.
5. On the same year, RTC denied the petitioner’s motion. Hence this petition.

NOTE:
6. During the year of 1994, the court trying the civil case rendered a decision nullifying
the TCT of the respondent-spouses, and declared the subjected lot to be owned IN
COMMON by the respondent-spouses and the petitioners. Respondent then filed a
motion for new trial.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not the question of ownership of the subjected lot which was pending in a
civil case, is a prejudicial question justifying suspension of the proceedings in the
criminal case against petitioners. YES!
RATIO:
CRIMINAL CASE: ANTI-SQUATTING LAW
1. The issue here is whether petitioner occupied a piece of land not belonging to them but
to private respondent and against the latter’s will.
CIVIL CASE: OWNERSHIP
1. The issue here is the ownership of subjected lot — a prejudicial question
2. The resolution of this question would necessarily be determinative of petitioners’
criminal liability for squatting.
3. Moreover, if the petitioners are to be declared as the co-owners of the subjected lot,
then they cannot be found to be guilty of squatting because they are much entitled to
the use and occupation of the land as are the private respondents.
4. Take note also that during the pendency of this case regarding the prejudicial question,
the court trying the civil case rendered a decision nullifying the TCT of the respondent-
spouses, and declared the subjected lot to be owned IN COMMON by the respondent-
spouses and the petitioners.
5. Ownership is the pivotal question hence the proceeding in criminal case must in the
meantime be suspended.
RULING:
Wherefore, the petition is granted. Respondent judge is ordered to SUSPEND the
proceedings in the criminal case.
NOTES:
Prejudicial question is a question based on fact, distinct and separate from the crime
but so intimately connected with it that its resolution is determinative of guilt or innocence of
the accused.

Requisites of prejudicial question:

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