Jimenez vs. Averia

A civil action for annulment of a receipt does not constitute a prejudicial question to a criminal case for estafa where the issue in the civil action is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused, since the prosecution may still prove misappropriation through evidence other than the contested receipt.

Manuel Jimenez entrusted P20,000 to Ofelia Tang and Estefania de la Cruz Olanday for the purchase of a fishing boat known as "Basnig" and its accessories, plus P240 as agent's commission, with the obligation to return the amounts by January 30, 1963 if the purchase failed. The respondents executed a receipt on October 26, 1962 acknowledging receipt of these sums. They were subsequently charged with estafa in the Court of First Instance of Cavite.

Manuel Jimenez delivered P20,000 to Ofelia Tang and Estefania de la Cruz Olanday for the purpose of purchasing a fishing boat known as "Basnig" and its accessories, together with P240 as agent's commission. On October 26, 1962, the respondents signed a receipt acknowledging receipt of these amounts, with the obligation to return them on January 30, 1963 in the event they were unable to purchase the fishing boat. When the respondents failed to buy the boat and did not return the money, Jimenez filed a criminal complaint for estafa against them in the Court of First Instance of Cavite, docketed as Criminal Case No. TM-235. The information alleged that the respondents, having received the sum with the obligation to return it by the specified date, misappropriated the amount to Jimenez's damage and prejudice.

Before arraignment in the criminal case, Tang and Olanday filed Civil Case No. 6636 in the Court of First Instance of Quezon, contesting the validity of the receipt they had signed. They alleged that they had never received any amount from Jimenez and that their signatures on the questioned receipt were secured through fraud, deceit, and intimidation employed by him. Several days later, they filed a motion in the criminal case to suspend proceedings, arguing that the determination of the issue in the civil case constituted a prejudicial question. Respondent Judge Alberto Averia granted the motion in an order dated October 18, 1963, suspending the criminal proceedings until the civil case was resolved.

Jimenez thereafter filed the present petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, contending that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing the suspension order. The Court noted that the action was properly one for mandamus, as the relief sought was for the Court to order the Cavite court to proceed with the criminal case and the Quezon court to dismiss the civil case. The central issue was whether the determination of the issue raised in the civil case was a prejudicial question that must be resolved before the criminal proceedings for estafa could continue.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner contended that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing the order suspending the criminal proceedings.
• No Prejudicial Question: Petitioner argued that the civil action for annulment of the receipt did not constitute a prejudicial question because its resolution was not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the estafa case.

• Prejudicial Question: Respondents argued that the determination of the issue in Civil Case No. 6636 — whether the receipt was validly executed — was a prejudicial question that must be resolved before the criminal case for estafa could proceed.
• Invalid Receipt: Respondents maintained that they had never received any amount from Jimenez and that their signatures on the receipt were secured through fraud, deceit, and intimidation.

• Prejudicial Question: Whether the civil action for annulment of the receipt constitutes a prejudicial question that warrants the suspension of the criminal proceedings for estafa.

• Prejudicial Question: No. The annulment of the receipt is not a prejudicial question because its resolution is not determinative of the accused's guilt or innocence, the prosecution being able to establish misappropriation through evidence other than the contested receipt.

• Prejudicial Question: A prejudicial question is one 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. Two elements must concur: the question must be determinative of the case before the court, and jurisdiction to try and resolve it must be lodged in another tribunal. Applying these criteria, the alleged prejudicial question was not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the estafa case. Even assuming that the execution of the receipt was vitiated by fraud, duress, or intimidation, the accused's guilt could still be established by other evidence showing, to the degree required by law, that they had actually received P20,000 from the complainant to buy a fishing boat and that, instead of doing so, they misappropriated the money and refused or failed to return it upon demand. The respondents' theory would have been tenable only had they been charged with falsification of the same receipt involved in the civil action. Sanctioning their theory would allow virtually any estafa accused to block criminal proceedings by the simple expedient of filing an independent civil action denying receipt of the amount allegedly misappropriated. A claim of non-receipt is properly a matter of defense to be interposed in the criminal proceeding itself.

• Prejudicial Question — A prejudicial question is one 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. Two requisites must concur: (1) the question claimed to be prejudicial must be determinative of the case before the court, and (2) jurisdiction to try and resolve said question must be lodged in another tribunal. In this case, the Court held that a civil action for annulment of a receipt did not satisfy the first requisite in relation to a criminal case for estafa, because the validity of the receipt was not determinative of guilt — the prosecution could prove misappropriation through evidence independent of the receipt. The doctrine also establishes the policy principle that a defense of non-receipt of funds is properly raised as a matter of defense in the criminal proceeding, not through a separate civil action designed to suspend prosecution.

• "A prejudicial question has been define to be one which arises in a case, the resolution of which, (question ) is a logical antecedent of the issued involved in said case, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal." — This passage provides the canonical definition of a prejudicial question as applied in Philippine jurisprudence, drawing from the Encyclopedia Juridical Española and reaffirmed in People vs. Aragon.
• "Were We to sanction the theory advanced by the respondents Tang and De la Cruz Olanday and adopted by the respondent judge, there would hardly be a case for estafa that could be prosecuted speedily, it being the easiest thing for the accused to block the proceedings by the simple expedient of filing an independent civil action against the complainant, raising therein the issue that he had not received from the latter the amount alleged to have been misappropriated." — This articulates the policy rationale against allowing civil actions for annulment of receipts to serve as prejudicial questions in estafa cases, emphasizing the potential for abuse by accused persons.
• "A claim to this effect is properly a matter of defense to be interposed by the party charged in the criminal proceeding." — This states the ratio decidendi that a denial of receipt of funds is a defense belonging in the criminal case, not a ground for a separate civil action to suspend prosecution.

• People vs. Aragon, G.R. No. L-5930, February 17, 1954 — Cited as controlling authority on the elements of a prejudicial question, holding that the question must be determinative of the case before the court and that jurisdiction to try and resolve it must be lodged in another tribunal. The Court applied this precedent to hold that the civil action for annulment of the receipt did not satisfy the determinative element.

Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concurred. Castro, J., took no part.