Art.

36: Prejudicial Question

ALFREDO CHING VS. CA
G.R. NO. 110844 (2000)
Facts: Petitioner was charged before the Makati RTC with Estafa, in relation to the Trust Receipts Law.
Thereafter, Petitioner filed before the Manila RTC for declaration of nullity of documents and for damages.
Petitioner then filed a petition before the Makati RTC for the suspension of the criminal proceedings on
the ground of prejudicial question in a civil action.
Issue: Whether or not there is a prejudicial question
Held: No. The two essential requisites of a prejudicial question are: (1) the civil action involves an issue
similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and (2) the resolution of such issue
determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. In the case at bar, the alleged prejudicial
question in the civil case for the declaration of nullity of documents and for damages, does not determine
the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal action for estafa. Assuming arguendo that the court
hearing the civil aspect of the case adjudicates that the transaction entered into between the parties was
not a trust receipt agreement, nonetheless the guilt of the accused could still be established and his
culpability under penal laws determined by other evidence.
Reference: http://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/2012/05/remedial-law-digests-2.html

ARTHUR TE VS. CA, LILIANA CHOA

FACTS:
Petition for review on certiorari which seeks to reverse the Decision of the Court of Appeals denying Te's
motion for reconsideration.
Arthur Te and Liliana Choa were married in Sept 1988. They do not live together but meet regularly until
after Liliana gave birth that Arthur stopped visiting her.
On May 20, 1990, while their marriage was still subsisting, Arthur contracted a second marriage with
Julieta Santella.
On August 1990, Liliana filed an information charging Arthur with bigamy.
Meanwhile, in July 1990, Arthur Te filed an action for annulment on the ground that he was forced to
marry her, that she concealed her pregnancy by another man at the time of their marriage and
psychologically incapacity.
On November 8, 1990, Liliana also filed with the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) an
administrative case against petitioner and Santella for the revocation of their respective engineering
licenses on the ground that they committed acts of immorality and an act of falsification against Arthur
when he stated in his 2nd marriage contract that he was still single.
After the prosecution or criminal case, petitioner filed demurrer to evidence and motion to inhibit the judge
were filed but were eventually denied by the court. Thus:

A. petitioner filed a petition for certiorari filed with the CA alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the trial court judge, Judge Cezar C. Peralejo.
B. Petitioner filed with the Board of Civil Engineering of the PRC a motion to suspend the proceedings
therein in view of the pendency of the case for annulment of his 1 st marriage and case for bigamy, but it
was subsequently denied. Thus, he filed with the CA another petition for certiorari against Board for grave
abuse of discretion:
(1) NOT holding that the annulment case is prejudicial to the outcome of the administrative case; (2) X X
X (3) making an overly-sweeping interpretation that Section 32 of the Rules and Regulations Governing
the Regulation and Practice of Professionals does not allow the suspension of the administrative
proceeding before the PRC Board despite the pendency of criminal and/or administrative proceedings
against the same respondent involving the same set of facts.
CA rendered that no prejudicial question existed since the action sought to be suspended is
administrative in nature, and the other action involved is a civil case.
ISSUES:
1. WON there is a prejudicial question between the civil case of annulment and criminal case of bigamy.
2. WON there is a prejudicial question between the civil case of annulment and administrative case.
HELD: No, No.
* Prejudicial Question - 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, 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.
1. Civil case for annulment did NOT pose a prejudicial question to the criminal case of bigamy.
The outcome of the civil case for annulment of petitioners marriage to private respondent had no bearing
upon the determination of petitioners innocence or guilt in the criminal case for bigamy, because all that
is required for bigamy to prosper is that the 1st marriage be subsisting at the time the 2nd marriage is
contracted.
Even a declaration that their marriage was void ab initio would NOT necessarily absolve him from criminal
liability. Art. 40 of Family Code is already in effect at the time of their marriage (Sept 1988) stating that a
marriage, even one which is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial
proceeding,
2. Civil case for annulment does NOT pose a prejudicial question to suspend an administrative
proceeding.
There is no prejudicial question where one case is administrative and the other is civil. The concept of
prejudicial question involves a civil and a criminal case.
Furthermore, Section 32 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Regulation and Practice of
Professionals of the PRC Board expressly provides that the administrative proceedings before it shall not
be suspended notwithstanding the existence of a criminal and/or civil case against the respondent
involving the same facts as the administrative case.

The Board shall proceed independently with the investigation of the case and shall render therein its
decision without awaiting for the final decision of the courts or quasi-judicial body.
Reference: https://www.scribd.com/doc/153665621/Arthur-Te-v-CA-Digest