Right against self-incrimination, ConstiFull description
Crim2 Digest of People v. Tomio KidnappingFull description
for Evidence class of Prof. Rowena Daroy-Morales
People v. Almazan Digest
Digest for Tarapen v. People
case
Full description
Digest for the case of Cabugao vs People
Issue on whether or not warrantless arrest is justified in the case.Full description
Constitutional law 2 Rights of the accusedFull description
Digest
Full description
SPL
Search and Seizures, Search Warrant can be severed.Full description
digest
Criminal Procedure digest
People v. Beronilla DigestFull description
Crim Pro case
People v. Sandiganbayan Case Digest
Crim 2 caseFull description
sa
Magistrado v. People G.R. No. 148072 Topic: Rule 111; Prejudicial question FACT:
Private respondent Elena Librojo filed a criminal complaint of against accused Francisco Magistrado before the the Office of the Prosecutor of ue!on "it#$ %hereafter the prosecutor recommended the filing of the complaint against accused$ &n 'nformation (as filed against the accused for perjur# before the Me%" of ue!on "it#$ %he 'nformation alleged that the accused subscribed and s(ore to an &ffidavit of Loss before a notar# public stating that he lost his O(ner)s *uplicate "ertificate of %"%$ %he same affidavit (as used to b# accused to support his Petition for 'ssuance of +e( O(ner)s *uplicate "op# of "ertificate of %"% filed (ith the R%" of ue!on "it#$ & verification (as again signed and s(orn into b# the accused before the notar# public$ ,o(ever- the contents of the same affidavit- alread# .no(n to the accused- are false$ 't (as later found out that the propert# subject of the %"% (as mortgaged to respondent Librojo as collateral for a loan$ loan$ &s a resul resultt- respon responden dentt suffe suffered red damage damagess and prejud prejudice ice due to the delibe deliberat ratee assert assertion ion of falsehoods b# the accused$ /ubsequentl#/ubsequentl#- petitioner0accused Magistrado filed a motion to suspend the proceedings on the ground of a prejudicial question$ Petitioner alleged that t(o civil cases for recover# of sum of mone# and for cancellation of mortgage2 (ere pending before the R%" of ue!on "it#- and that the# must be resolved first before the present criminal case$ %he R%" of ue!on "it# denied the motion$ ,ence this petition$ !"#:
3hether or not the t(o civil cases for Recover# of /um of Mone# and for "ancellation of Mortgage2 constitutes a prejudicial question that (ould (arrant a suspension of the criminal case of perjur# R"$!NG % RAT!&:
& prejudicial question is defined as that (hich arises in a case the resolution of (hich is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein- and he cogni!ance of (hich pertains to another tribunal$ Furthera prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court- but the jurisdiction must be lodged in another court$ 4't is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intim intimate atel# l# connec connected ted (ith (ith it that that it determ determine iness the guilt guilt or innoce innocence nce of the accuse accused$5 d$5 %he "ourt "ourt enumerated the requisites of a prejudicial question that (ould suspend the cri minal proceedings until final resolution of the civil case6 1$ %he civil case involves facts intimatel# intimatel# related to those upon (hich (hich the criminal criminal prosecution prosecution (ould be based; 7$ %he guilt guilt or innocence innocence of the accused accused (ould necessar necessaril# il# be determined determined in resolvin resolving g the issued issued raised in the civil case; 8$ 9urisdict 9urisdiction ion to tr# tr# the quest question ion is lodged lodged in another another tribun tribunal$ al$ 'n concluding the "ourt stated- 4it is evident that the civil cases and the criminal cases can proceed independentl# of each other$ Regardless of the outcome of the t(o civil cases- it (ill not establish the innocence or guilt of the petitioner inf the criminal case of perjur#$ %he purchase b# petitioner of the land
or his e:ecution of a real estate mortgage (ill have no bearing (hatsoever on (hether petitioner .no(ingl# and fraudulentl# e:ecuted a false affidavit of loss of the %"%$