TWO CONSOLIDATED PETITIONS FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI seeking to annul and set aside the Decisions issued by the Court of Appeals (CA).
Facts:
During their lifetime, Spouses Macario and Felicidad Domingo owned a parcel of land situated in F. Sevilla Street, San Juan, Metro Manila. Macario and Felicidad died in 1981 and 1997, respectively.
In 2006, the daughter, respondent Engracia Singson, filed a Complaint for Ejectment/Unlawful Detainer against the petitioner and co-heirs. She claimed to be the absolute owner of the property having bought the same from their parents as evidenced by a Deed of Sale dated June 6, 2006. It was the first time the petitioners learned of the supposed sale when they received the summons and copy of the Complaint.
As a response, the petitioners filed a civil action and subsequently a criminal complaint against the respondent. First, a Complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City to seek the nullity of the sale (Civil Case No. 70898), filed on July 31, 2006. They alleged that the Deed of Sale dated June 6, 2006, upon which Engracia bases her ownership of the subject property, was a nullity since the signatures of their parents appearing thereon as the supposed vendors were forged. Second, a Joint Affidavit Complaint with the Office of the Prosecutor of Pasig City charging Engracia with the crimes of falsification of public document, estafa, and use of falsified documents (Criminal Case No. 137867).
Engracia and her spouse filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings Due to Prejudicial Question pursuant to Section 6 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. They alleged that the validity and genuineness of the Absolute Deed of Sale which is the subject of the civil case still pending with the RTC are determinative of their guilt of the crime charged.
The private prosecutor filed an opposition to the motion, stating that Criminal Case No. 137867 can proceed independently from Civil Case No. 70898 pursuant to Article 33 of the Civil Code, in relation to Section 3 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court.
The RTC issued an Order which granted the Motion to Suspend Proceedings. The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals which then denied it.
Issue:
Whether or not it was proper to suspend the criminal proceedings based on the ground of prejudicial question.
Discussion:
Yes, it was proper to suspend the criminal proceedings based on the ground of prejudicial question.
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. 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. The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid two conflict decisions.
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 case, 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.
Based on the issues raised in both Civil Case No. 70898 and Criminal Case No. 137867 against the Spouses Singson, and in the light of the foregoing concepts of a prejudicial question, there indeed appears to be a prejudicial question in the case at bar. The defense of the Spouses Singson in the civil case for annulment of sale is that Engracia bought the subject property from her parents prior to their demise and that their signatures appearing on the Absolute Deed of Sale are true and genuine. Their allegation in the civil case is based on the very same facts, which would be necessarily determinative of their guilt or innocence as accused in the criminal case.
If the signatures of the Spouses Domingo in the Absolute Deed of Sale are genuine, then there would be no falsification and the Spouses Singson would be innocent of the offense charged. Otherwise stated, a conviction on Criminal Case No. 137867, should it be allowed to proceed ahead, would be a gross injustice and would have to be set aside if it were finally decided in Civil Case No. 70898 that indeed the signatures of the Spouses Domingo were authentic.
The petitioners' reliance on Section 3 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Article 33 of the Civil Code, is misplaced. Section 3 provides that a civil action for damages in cases provided under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code, which may also constitute criminal offenses, may proceed independently of the criminal action. In instances where an independent civil action is permitted, the result of the criminal action, whether of acquittal or conviction, is entirely irrelevant to the civil action.
The concept of independent civil actions finds no application in this case. Clearly, Civil Case No. 70898 is very much relevant to the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 137867. To stress, the main issue raised in Civil Case No. 70898, i.e., the genuineness of the signature of the Spouses Domingo appearing in the Absolute Deed of Sale, is intimately related to the charge of estafa through falsification of public document in Criminal Case No. 137867; the resolution of the main issue in Civil Case No. 70898 would necessarily be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the Spouses Singson.
Accordingly, the RTC Branch 264 correctly suspended the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 137867 on the ground of prejudicial question since, at the time the proceedings in the criminal case were suspended, Civil Case No. 70898 was still pending.
No comments:
Post a Comment