De la Cruz vs. The City Fiscal

A pending civil action does not constitute a prejudicial question to a criminal prosecution for falsification of a public document unless the resolution of the civil action is determinative of the accused’s guilt or innocence; neither the annulment of a deed of donation to which the accused is not a party nor the annulment of the affidavit of adjudication that is the subject of the falsification charge satisfies this requirement.

Apolinario de la Cruz and Carmelita de la Cruz asserted conflicting claims over a parcel of land left by Francisca Bandong. Apolinario claimed to be Francisca’s sole heir and executed an affidavit of adjudication over the parcel in his favor. Carmelita claimed the same parcel as inheritance from her father Ludovico de la Cruz, to whom Francisca had donated it. The controversy thus involved both the affidavit of adjudication and the deed of donation.

Apolinario de la Cruz and Carmelita de la Cruz asserted conflicting claims over a parcel of land left by Francisca Bandong. Apolinario claimed to be the only heir of Francisca and executed an affidavit of adjudication adjudicating the parcel to himself. Carmelita claimed the parcel belonged to her as inheritance from her father Ludovico de la Cruz, to whom Francisca had donated it. On August 22, 1957, Carmelita filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Lingayen, Pangasinan, against Apolinario to declare the affidavit of adjudication null and void. In his answer, Apolinario alleged that the affidavit was made in good faith and with the consent of all the heirs of Francisca; in his cross-complaint, he claimed that the deed of donation invoked by Carmelita was fictitious and should be declared null and void.

On September 20, 1957, petitioners were summoned by the Dagupan City Fiscal to appear for investigation of a charge of falsification of public document in connection with Apolinario’s affidavit of adjudication. Counsel for petitioners informed the Fiscal that two civil cases were pending in the Court of First Instance of Lingayen, Pangasinan—one for annulment of the deed of adjudication and the other for annulment of the deed of donation—and that these constituted a prejudicial question warranting the criminal action being held in abeyance. Because the Fiscal proposed to continue with the investigation, petitioners filed a petition for prohibition to restrain the City Fiscal of Dagupan City from filing an information against them or further prosecuting them for falsification of public document.

The trial court denied the petition. It found that the civil action for annulment of the deed of adjudication had no connection with the Fiscal’s investigation into Apolinario’s declaration that he was the only heir when there were other heirs, and that the information for falsification did not affect the pending civil case for annulment of the deed of adjudication. As to the civil case for annulment of the deed of donation, the trial court found that Apolinario was not a party to the donation and that the falsification investigation was entirely foreign and distinct from that civil case. The trial court concluded that no prejudicial question existed.

• Prejudicial Question: Petitioners maintained that the two pending civil cases in the Court of First Instance of Lingayen, Pangasinan—one for annulment of the deed of adjudication and the other for annulment of the deed of donation—constituted a prejudicial question warranting the criminal action being held in abeyance.
• Prohibition: Petitioners sought a writ of prohibition to restrain the City Fiscal of Dagupan City from filing an information against them or further prosecuting them for falsification of public document.

• Prejudicial Question — Annulment of Deed of Donation: Whether the pending civil action for annulment of the deed of donation allegedly made by Francisca Bandong in favor of Ludovico de la Cruz constitutes a prejudicial question requiring the suspension of the criminal investigation for falsification of public document.
• Prejudicial Question — Annulment of Affidavit of Adjudication: Whether the pending civil action for annulment of the affidavit of adjudication executed by Apolinario de la Cruz constitutes a prejudicial question requiring the suspension of the criminal investigation for falsification of public document.

• Prejudicial Question — Annulment of Deed of Donation: No. The civil action for annulment of the deed of donation is not a prejudicial question because Apolinario de la Cruz was not a party to the donation and the criminal investigation for falsification is entirely foreign and distinct from that civil case.
• Prejudicial Question — Annulment of Affidavit of Adjudication: No. Although the execution of the affidavit of adjudication is intimately related to the charge, the resolution of the petition for annulment of the affidavit will not determine criminal responsibility in the falsification case; the charge depends on the truth or falsity of the narration of facts in the affidavit, especially the existence of heirs of Francisca besides Apolinario.

• Prejudicial Question — Annulment of Deed of Donation: A prejudicial question is 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. It must be determinative of the case before the court, and jurisdiction to try the question must be lodged in another tribunal. It must precede the criminal action and requires a decision before final judgment in the principal action. Not all previous questions are prejudicial. A civil action is prejudicial when it refers to a fact separate and distinct from the offense charged but yet so intimately related thereto as to be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Here, the civil action for annulment of the deed of donation did not meet this test. Apolinario was not a party to the deed of donation, and the criminal investigation for falsification was entirely foreign and distinct from that civil case. Consequently, the annulment of the donation could not be a logical antecedent determinative of Apolinario’s guilt or innocence in the falsification case.
• Prejudicial Question — Annulment of Affidavit of Adjudication: The execution of the affidavit of adjudication by Apolinario was intimately related to his guilt or innocence of the falsification charge, because the affidavit narrated facts concerning his status as the only heir of Francisca. However, the resolution of the petition for annulment of the affidavit of adjudication, whether affirmative or otherwise, would not determine criminal responsibility in the falsification case. Regardless of the outcome of the civil case, the determination of the falsification charge would be based on the truth or falsity of the narration of facts in the affidavit, especially with reference to the existence of heirs of Francisca besides Apolinario. Thus, the civil case did not involve a prejudicial question.

• Prejudicial Question — A prejudicial question is 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. It must be determinative of the case before the court, and jurisdiction to try the question must be lodged in another tribunal. It must precede the criminal action and requires a decision before final judgment in the principal action. Not all previous questions are prejudicial, although all prejudicial questions are necessarily previous. In this case, neither of the pending civil cases satisfied the requirement that its resolution be determinative of the criminal case.
• Civil Action as Prejudicial Question — A civil action is prejudicial when it refers to a fact separate and distinct from the offense charged but yet so intimately related thereto as to be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The Court applied this test and held that the annulment of the deed of donation was not prejudicial because Apolinario was not a party to the donation, and the annulment of the affidavit of adjudication was not prejudicial because its resolution would not determine his criminal responsibility for falsification.
• Determinative Test in Prejudicial Question — The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court. The Court found that the truth or falsity of the narration in the affidavit of adjudication, particularly the existence of other heirs of Francisca, was the matter that would determine the falsification charge, not the civil annulment of the affidavit itself.

• "The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court; this is its first element. Jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal; this is the second element." — This passage states the two elements of a prejudicial question, which the Court used to test the pending civil cases.
• "A civil action is prejudicial when it refers to a fact separate and distinct from the offense charged but yet so intimately related thereto as to be determinative off the guilt or innocent of the accused." — This formulation defines when a civil action may be considered prejudicial to a criminal prosecution, and the Court applied it to reject both civil cases as prejudicial questions.
• "As regards the annulment of the deed of donation sought by petitioner Apolinario in his cross-complaint before the Court of First Instance of Lingayen, Pangasinan, we agree with the trial court that it has no intimate relation to the criminal investigation being conducted by respondent Fiscal, Apolinario not even being a party to said deed of donation; consequently, it may by no means be regarded as a prejudicial question." — This passage is the Court’s specific holding on the deed of donation.
• "Regardless of the outcome of the pending civil case annulment of the affidavit of adjudication, determination of the charge of falsification would be based on the truth or falsity of the narration of facts in the affidavit of adjudication, specially with reference to the existence of heirs of Francisca besides Apolinario." — This passage is the Court’s ratio for holding that the annulment of the affidavit of adjudication did not constitute a prejudicial question.

• People vs. Aragon, 94 Phil. 357; 50 Off. Gaz. [10], 4863 — Cited for the two elements of a prejudicial question: it must be determinative of the case before the court, and jurisdiction to try the question must be lodged in another tribunal.
• Herbari vs. Concepcion, 40 Phil. 837 — Cited for the definition that a prejudicial question must precede the criminal action and requires a decision before final judgment in the principal action; not all previous questions are prejudicial.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Concepcion, Endencia, Barrera and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.