Alano vs. Court of Appeals

A stipulation of facts made by the accused during the pre-trial of a criminal case constitutes a judicial admission that is binding upon him and amounts to a waiver of any inconsistent defense raised in a related civil case, thereby negating the existence of a prejudicial question that would justify the suspension of the criminal proceedings. The doctrine of prejudicial question, being a procedural matter, is subject to waiver by the prior acts of the accused.

Petitioner Arturo Alano was charged with estafa in Criminal Case No. 90-84933 before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 37, for allegedly selling a parcel of land in Bicutan, Taguig to private respondent Roberto Carlos, and then selling the same property a second time to Erlinda B. Dandoy. A related civil case, Civil Case No. 55103, was pending before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 68, involving the nullity of the second sale and recovery of possession and damages. The civil case was filed on March 1, 1985, five years before the criminal case was instituted on June 19, 1990.

Petitioner Arturo Alano was prosecuted for estafa in Criminal Case No. 90-84933 before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 37. The information alleged that on or about June 10, 1986, Alano defrauded Roberto S. Carlos by pretending to be the owner of a parcel of land with an area of 1,172 square meters located at Bicutan, Taguig, covered by Tax Declaration No. 120-004-00398, well knowing that he had previously sold the same to Carlos for P30,000.00, and sold the property a second time to Erlinda B. Dandoy for P87,900.00, depriving Carlos of his rightful ownership and possession.

Alano moved for the suspension of the criminal case on the ground that a prejudicial question was pending in Civil Case No. 55103, entitled "Roberto Carlos and Trinidad M. Carlos vs. Arturo Alano, et. al.," before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 68, which concerned the nullity of the sale and recovery of possession and damages. In that civil case, the private respondents sought the annulment of the second sale on the premise that the land had been previously sold to them. In his answer, Alano contended that he never sold the property to the private respondents and that his signature in the deed of absolute sale in their favor was a forgery, making the alleged sale fictitious and inexistent.

During the pre-trial of the criminal case, however, a pre-trial order dated October 5, 1990 contained a stipulation of facts in which Alano admitted the validity of his signature in the first deed of sale between him and the private respondent, as well as his acknowledgment of his signature in twenty-three cash vouchers evidencing the payments made by the private respondent. The Court of Appeals also noted that Alano even wrote to the private respondent offering to refund whatever sum the latter had paid. The trial court denied Alano's motion for suspension on October 3, 1991, and the Court of Appeals dismissed his subsequent petition for certiorari and prohibition on July 26, 1993.

• Prejudicial Question: Petitioner argued that the pendency of Civil Case No. 55103 constituted a prejudicial question justifying the suspension of the criminal proceedings, because if the civil court ruled that the first sale was null and void due to the forgery of his signature, the criminal case for estafa would not prosper.
• Forgery Defense: Petitioner alleged that his signature in the first deed of absolute sale in favor of the private respondent was a forgery, such that there was no second sale covering the parcel of land.

• Judicial Admission: Private respondent countered that petitioner had already admitted, in the stipulation of facts during the pre-trial of the criminal case, the validity of his signature in the first deed of sale and his acknowledgment of his signature in twenty-three cash vouchers evidencing payments made.
• Waiver: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial on the ground that petitioner's stipulation of facts constituted an admission that waived his right to contest the veracity of the statements contained in the exhibits.

• Prejudicial Question: Whether the pendency of Civil Case No. 55103 is a prejudicial question justifying the suspension of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 90-84933.
• Waiver: Whether petitioner's stipulation of facts during the pre-trial of the criminal case constituted a waiver of his defense of forgery in the civil case.

• Prejudicial Question: No. The doctrine of prejudicial question did not apply because petitioner's admission in the stipulation of facts during the pre-trial of the criminal case amounted to a waiver of his defense of forgery in the civil case, negating the existence of a prejudicial question.
• Waiver: Yes. The stipulation of facts stated in the pre-trial order constituted a judicial admission binding upon the petitioner, and the right to present evidence, being waivable, was waived by his prior acts.

• Prejudicial Question: The doctrine of prejudicial question applies where a civil action and a criminal action are both pending and there exists in the former an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed, because the resolution of the issue in the civil action would be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal action. The Court acknowledged that a criminal action for estafa for alleged double sale of property is a prejudicial question to a civil action for nullity of the alleged deed of sale where the defense of the alleged vendor is the forgery of his signature. However, the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the denial of the suspension because petitioner had already admitted, in the stipulation of facts during the pre-trial of the criminal case, the validity of his signature in the first deed of sale and his acknowledgment of his signature in the cash vouchers. The pre-trial provision on criminal procedure found in Rule 118 of the Rules of Court recognizes stipulation of facts as declarations constituting judicial admissions, binding upon the parties, by virtue of which the prosecution dispensed with the introduction of additional evidence and the defense waived the right to contest or dispute the veracity of the statements contained in the exhibits.
• Waiver: While the right to present evidence is guaranteed under the Constitution, this right may be waived expressly or impliedly. Since the suspension of the criminal case due to a prejudicial question is only a procedural matter, it is subject to waiver by virtue of the prior acts of the accused. The doctrine of waiver is made solely for the benefit and protection of the individual in his private capacity, if it can be dispensed with and relinquished without infringing on any public right and without detriment to the community at large. Petitioner's admission in the stipulation of facts during the pre-trial of the criminal case amounted to a waiver of his defense of forgery in the civil case, and there was no reason to nullify such waiver, it being not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. Furthermore, the pre-trial order was signed by the petitioner himself, and the rule that no proof need be offered as to any facts admitted at a pre-trial hearing applies.

• Doctrine of Prejudicial Question — A prejudicial question exists when a civil action and a criminal action are both pending and there exists in the former an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal action. In this case, the Court found that although a prejudicial question appeared to exist, the petitioner's stipulation of facts during the pre-trial of the criminal case, admitting the validity of his signature, negated the prejudicial question by waiving his defense of forgery.
• Doctrine of Waiver — The right to present evidence, though constitutionally guaranteed, may be waived expressly or impliedly. Since the suspension of a criminal case due to a prejudicial question is only a procedural matter, it is subject to waiver by the prior acts of the accused. The doctrine of waiver is made solely for the benefit and protection of the individual in his private capacity, if it can be dispensed with and relinquished without infringing on any public right and without detriment to the community at large.
• Judicial Admission via Stipulation of Facts — A stipulation of facts by the parties in a criminal case, as recognized in Rule 118 of the Rules of Court, constitutes declarations constituting judicial admissions, hence binding upon the parties. By virtue of such stipulation, the prosecution dispenses with the introduction of additional evidence and the defense waives the right to contest or dispute the veracity of the statements contained in the exhibits. The pre-trial order, being signed by the accused, binds him, and no proof need be offered as to any facts admitted at a pre-trial hearing.

• "The doctrine of prejudicial question comes into play in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action are both pending and there exists in the former an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal action." — This passage defines the canonical formulation of the doctrine of prejudicial question and is the controlling rule applied in the case.
• "From the foregoing, there is no question that a stipulation of facts by the parties in a criminal case is recognized as declarations constituting judicial admissions, hence, binding upon the parties and by virtue of which the prosecution dispensed with the introduction of additional evidence and the defense waived the right to contest or dispute the veracity of the statement contained in the exhibit." — This passage establishes the binding effect of stipulations of facts in criminal pre-trial and the consequent waiver of the defense's right to contest admitted facts.
• "Since the suspension of the criminal case due to a prejudicial question is only a procedural matter, the same is subject to a waiver by virtue of the prior acts of the accused. After all, the doctrine of waiver is made solely for the benefit and protection of the individual in his private capacity, if it can be dispensed with and relinquished without infringing on any public right and without detriment to the community at large." — This passage articulates the rationale for holding that the prejudicial question doctrine, being procedural, may be waived by the accused's prior admissions.

• Flordelis vs. Castillo, 58 SCRA 301 (1974) — Cited as controlling precedent for the definition of the doctrine of prejudicial question.
• Donato vs. Luna, 160 SCRA 441 (1988) — Cited as controlling precedent for the definition of the doctrine of prejudicial question.
• Benitez vs. Concepcion, Jr., 2 SCRA 178 (1961) — Cited for the proposition that a prejudicial question exists when both civil and criminal cases have similar issues or the issue in one is intimately related to the issues raised in the other, provided the other element or characteristic is satisfied.
• Ras vs. Rasul, 100 SCRA 125 (1980) — Cited for the ruling that a criminal action for estafa for alleged double sale of property is a prejudicial question to a civil action for nullity of the alleged deed of sale where the defense of the alleged vendor is the forgery of his signature.
• People vs. Hernandez, 260 SCRA 25 (1996) — Cited for the proposition that stipulations of facts in a criminal case constitute judicial admissions binding upon the parties.
• People vs. Bocar, 27 SCRA 512 (1969) — Cited for the proposition that by virtue of a stipulation of facts, the prosecution dispenses with the introduction of additional evidence and the defense waives the right to contest or dispute the veracity of the statements contained in the exhibits.
• People vs. Dichose, 96 SCRA 957 (1980) — Cited for the proposition that the right to present evidence may be waived expressly or impliedly.
• People vs. Donato, 198 SCRA 130 (1991) — Cited for the proposition that the doctrine of waiver is made solely for the benefit and protection of the individual in his private capacity.
• Afable, et al. vs. Ruiz, et al., 56 O.G. 3767 — Cited for the rule that no proof need be offered as to any facts admitted at a pre-trial hearing.
• Permanent Concrete Products, Inc. vs. Teodoro, 26 SCRA 339 (1969) — Cited for the rule that no proof need be offered as to any facts admitted at a pre-trial hearing.
• Munasque vs. Court of Appeals, 139 SCRA 533 (1985) — Cited for the rule that no proof need be offered as to any facts admitted at a pre-trial hearing.

• Section 2, Rule 118, Rules of Court — The pre-trial conference in criminal cases shall consider plea bargaining and stipulation of facts. The Court applied this provision to hold that the petitioner's stipulation of facts constituted a judicial admission binding upon him.
• Section 14, Article 3, 1987 Constitution — Guarantees the right to present evidence. The Court acknowledged this right but held that it may be waived expressly or impliedly.
• Article 6, Civil Code — Provides that rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. The Court applied this provision to uphold the validity of the petitioner's waiver of his forgery defense.

Narvasa, C.J., Melo, Francisco and Panganiban, JJ., concurred.