PEOPLE V.

CONSING

FACTS:
-

Rafael Consing and his mother represented to PBI that they were the true
owners of a parcel of land further alleged that they acquired said property
from Teng and Yu

After some time, PBI discovered that respondent and his mother did not have
valid title to said land the company came to know that Teng and Yu never
sold the lot the company was eventually ousted by the true and lawful
owners

They sent written demands to respondent ad his mother to return the money
which they aid was unheeded

Respondent eventually filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch
68, an action for Injunctive Relief against PBI, Unicapital Inc, Unicapital Realty
Inc., Jaime Martires, Mariano D. Martinez, Cecilia de la Cruz and 20 other John
Does.

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.

PBI however filed a complaint for damages against respondent and his
mother respondent filed a motion to dismiss on account of forum shopping

Consequently, a criminal case for estafa through falsification of public

document was filed against respondent and his mother

Respondent filed a motion to defer arraignment on the ground of prejudicial

question, i.e., the pendency of civil cases denied

CA: respondent filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction GRANTED

SUPREME COURT:

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.

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.

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. Likewise, the resolution of PBIs
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.
-

Moreover, neither is there a prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal
action can, according to law, proceed independently of each other.