People v Consing

January 16, 2003| Petition for Certiorari | Ynares-Santiago, J.| |Civil Aspect: Prejudicial Question
PETITIONER: People of the Philippines
RESPONDENT: Rafael Jose Consing, Jr.
SUMMARY: PBI bought lot from Respondent and his mother. PBI was ousted from possession of lot by the real owners.
Respondent didn’t return money PBI paid. Consing filed w/RTC an action for Injunctive Relief while PBI filed a complaint for
Damages and Attachment. Criminal Case was then filed against Respondent and his mom for Estafa through Falsification of Pub Doc.
DOCTRINE:
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.

FACTS:
1. Sometime in Feb 1997, Respondent and his mother, Cecilia
de la Cruz, represented to Plus Builders, Inc. (PBI) that
they are the true and lawful owners of a 42,443m2 lot in
Imus, Cavite covered by a TCT under Cecilia’s name,
having acquired it when it was covered by a TCT under
Juanito Tan Teng and Po Willie Yu. PBI purchased the lot.
2. PBI found out that respondent and Cecilia didn’t have a
valid title over the lot. Juanito and Po never sold it to
respondent and mother and that the TCT under Cecilia’s
name was not on file w/the Register of Deeds.
3. PBI was ousted from the possession of the lot by Juanito
and Po. Despite written and verbal demands, respondent
and his mother refused to return the P13,369,641.79
alleged to have been initially paid by PBI.
4. July 1999, Respondent filed an action for Injunctive Relief
w/RTC of Pasig City against PBI, Unicapital Inc,
Unicapital Realty Inc, Jaime Martires, Mariano Martinez,
Cecilia de la Cruz and 20 other John Does. He sought a
declaration that he was merely an agent of his mother and
therefore, was not under any obligation to PBI and to the
other defendants on the various transactions involving the
disputed lot.
5. Oct 1999, PBI filed a complaint for Damages and
Attachment against respondent and his mother w/RTC of
Mla. Respondent filed Motion to Dismiss on ground of
forum shopping.
6. Jan 2000, estafa through falsification of pub doc was filed
against respondent and his mother w/RTC of Imus, Cavite
7. April 2000, Respondent filed motion to defer arraignment
on ground of prejudicial question (pendency of 2 Civil
Cases). TC denied. MR also denied.
8. Respondent filed petition for certiorari w/prayer for
issuance of a TRO and/or writ of Prelim Injunction w/CA
seeking to enjoin the arraignment and trial of the estafa
through falsification case. CA granted TRO.
9. May 2991, order of TC set aside. TC permanently enjoined
from proceeding w/arraignment and trial of crim case until
the civil cases for Injunctive Relief and for Damages and
Attachment have been finally decided.
ISSUE: WON the pendency of the civil cases is a prejudicial
question justifying the suspension of the proceedings in the
criminal case for estafa filed against respondent- NO
RULING: CA REVERSED & SET ASIDE.
RATIO:
1. 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.
2. The issue in the case for Injunctive Relief is WON
respondent merely acted as an agent of his mother, while in
the case for Damages and Attachment, the question is WON
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 the case for Injunctive
Relief is irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of the
respondent in the criminal case for estafa through
falsification of public document.
3. A ruling in the case that PBI should not be paid the purchase
price plus damages will not necessarily absolve respondent
of liability in the crimcase where his guilt may still be
established under penal laws as determined by other
evidence
4. Neither is there a prejudicial question if the civil and the
crimaction can, accdg to law, proceed independently of each
other. Under Rule 111, Sec. 3 of the Revised Rules on
CrimPro in the cases provided in Arts 32, 33, 34 & 2176,
CC, the indep. civ action may be brought by the offended
party. It shall proceed independently of the crim action and
shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case,
however, may the offended party recover damages twice for
the same act or omission charged in the criminal action.
5. The case for Damages and Attachment on account of the
alleged fraud committed by respondent and his mother in
selling the disputed lot to PBI is an independent civil action
under Art. 33,CC. As such, it will not operate as a
prejudicial question that will justify the suspension of the
criminal case at bar.