7.c.2 Yap v. Paras

VII. Civil Liability Arising from Crime (Rules of Court) C. Prejudicial Question (Article !" CC# R$$$" %ec. !" R&C) 'AP V. PARA% .R. o. $*$+! ,anuary *" $--+ AC/%0 According to 'a1" Paras sold in $-2$ to 3er 3is s3are in t3e intestate estate for P**.**. /3e sale 4as evidenced by a 1rivate document. ineteen years later" (in $--*)" Paras sold t3e same  1ro1erty to %antiago %aya5ang for P6"***.**. /3is 4as evidenced by a notari7ed 8eed of  Absolute %ale. 93en 'a1 learned of t3e second sale" s3e filed a com1laint for estafa against Paras and %aya5ang 4it3 t3e &ffice of t3e Provincial Prosecutor of eneral %antos City. City. &n t3e same date" s3e filed a com1laint for t3e nullification of t3e said sale 4it3 t3e Regional /rial Court of eneral %antos City. After investigation" t3e Provincial Prosecutor instituted a criminal com1laint for estafa against Paras 4it3 t3e :unici1al Circuit /rial Court of lan5:ala1atan" %out3 Cotabato" Cotabato" 1resided 1resided by ,udge Alfredo Alfredo 8. ;arcelona" ;arcelona" %r." 43o dismissed dismissed t3e criminal criminal case on t3e ground t3at t3e issue in t3e civil case is 1rejudicial to t3e criminal case for estafa. I%%<=0 $. 9> t3e ,udge correct in motu 1ro1rio dismissing t3e criminal case? @=L80 $. &. irst" 3e s3ould not 3ave dismissed t3e criminal case but only sus1ended it. %econd" it 4as 4rong for 3im to dismiss t3e criminal case outrig3t" since it reuires a motion first from t3e  1ro1er 1arty. /3e rule 1rovides0 %ec. !. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. question. B A 1etition for sus1ension of t3e criminal action based u1on t3e 1endency of a 1rejudicial uestion in a civil action may be filed in t3e office of t3e fiscal or t3e court conducting t3e 1reliminary investigation. 93en t3e criminal action 3as been filed in court for trial" t3e 1etition to sus1end s3all be filed in t3e same criminal action at any time before t3e 1rosecution rests. /3ird" t3ere is actually no 1rejudicial uestion 3ere. Anent t3e issue of 1rejudicial uestion" t3e rule 1rovides t3at0 %ection 6" Rule $$$ of t3e $-6 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended 1rovides0 %ec. 6. Elements 6. Elements of prejudicial question. question. B /3e t4o (+) essential elements of a  1rejudicial uestion are0 (a) t3e civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to t3e issue raised in t3e criminal action# and (b) t3e resolution of suc3 issue determines 43et3er or not t3e criminal action may 1roceed.

A 1rejudicial uestion is defined as t3at 43ic3 arises in a case t3e resolution of 43ic3 is a logical antecedent of t3e issue involved t3erein" and t3e cogni7ance of 43ic3 1ertains to anot3er  tribunal. /3e 1rejudicial uestion must be determinative of t3e case before t3e court but t3e  jurisdiction to try and resolve t3e uestion must be lodged in anot3er court or tribunal. It is a uestion based on a fact distinct and se1arate from t3e crime but so intimately connected 4it3 it t3at it determines t3e guilt or innocence of t3e accused. It 4as 3eld t3at Dfor a civil case to be considered 1rejudicial to a criminal action as to cause t3e sus1ension of t3e criminal action  1ending t3e determination of t3e civil action" it must a11ear not only t3at t3e civil case involves t3e same facts u1on 43ic3 t3e criminal 1rosecution is based" but also t3at t3e resolution of t3e issues raised in said civil action 4ould be necessarily determinative of t3e guilt or innocence of  t3e accusedD. Indeed" t3e civil case at bar does not involve t3e same facts u1on 43ic3 t3e criminal action is  based. /3ere 4as no motion for sus1ension in t3e case at bar# and no less im1ortantly" t3e res1ondent judge 3ad not been informed of t3e defense Paras 4as raising in t3e civil action. ,udge ;arcelona could not 3ave ascertained t3en if t3e issue raised in t3e civil action 4ould determine t3e guilt or innocence of t3e accused in t3e criminal case.