Magestrado vs. People

A special civil action for certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal from a final order; and a civil action constitutes a prejudicial question warranting the suspension of a criminal case only when the resolution of the issues in the civil action necessarily determines the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Private respondent Elena M. Librojo filed a criminal complaint for perjury against petitioner Francisco Magestrado after he executed an affidavit of loss and petitioned for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-173163. Librojo alleged that the title was not lost but had been surrendered to her as collateral for a loan secured by a real estate mortgage. Simultaneously, petitioner filed a civil case for cancellation of mortgage and delivery of title, while private respondent filed a separate civil case for collection of a sum of money.

• The Perjury Charge: An information for perjury was filed against petitioner for willfully making an untruthful statement under oath. He subscribed to an Affidavit of Loss before a Notary Public, falsely alleging he lost the Owner’s Duplicate Certificate of TCT No. N-173163, and used it to support a Petition for Issuance of a New Owner’s Duplicate Copy. Private respondent alleged the title was not lost but surrendered to her as collateral for a loan of ₱758,134.42.
• The Civil Cases: Petitioner filed Civil Case No. Q-98-34308 for Cancellation of Mortgage, Delivery of Title, and Damages, alleging he purchased the land through private respondent, who acted as a broker. He claimed he was pressured to sign a Deed of Sale, and private respondent unlawfully withheld the title and falsified a real estate mortgage to justify withholding it. Private respondent filed Civil Case No. Q-98-34349 for Collection of a Sum of Money, alleging petitioner obtained a loan secured by a real estate mortgage over the same property and failed to pay.
• Motion to Suspend: Petitioner moved to suspend the criminal proceedings in the MeTC, arguing the pending civil cases posed a prejudicial question. The MeTC denied the motion, finding the resolution of the civil issues not determinative of the accused's guilt or innocence. The RTC subsequently dismissed petitioner's certiorari petition assailing the MeTC's denial.

• Proper Remedy: Petitioner argued that a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 was the correct remedy to question the RTC's dismissal of his certiorari petition before the Court of Appeals.
• Prejudicial Question: Petitioner maintained that the civil cases for cancellation of mortgage and collection of sum of money involved issues intimately related to the perjury charge, warranting the suspension of the criminal proceedings pending the resolution of the civil cases.

• Proper Remedy: Respondents countered that an ordinary appeal was the proper remedy to challenge the RTC's final order of dismissal, not a special civil action for certiorari.
• Prejudicial Question: Respondents argued that the civil cases did not pose a prejudicial question because the resolution of the loan and mortgage issues would not determine whether petitioner committed perjury in executing a false affidavit of loss.

• Proper Remedy: Whether a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is the appropriate remedy to question the RTC's dismissal of a certiorari petition, in lieu of an ordinary appeal.
• Prejudicial Question: Whether the pendency of civil cases for cancellation of mortgage and collection of sum of money constitutes a prejudicial question that warrants the suspension of a criminal case for perjury.

• Proper Remedy: The petition for certiorari was correctly dismissed by the Court of Appeals. The RTC's order of dismissal was a final order, appealable under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Certiorari lies only when there is no appeal or plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available. Because appeal was available, certiorari cannot serve as a substitute for a lost or lapsed appeal occasioned by petitioner's own neglect or error in the choice of remedies.
• Prejudicial Question: No prejudicial question exists. The civil cases seek to determine whether a loan was obtained and whether a real estate mortgage was validly executed. The criminal case determines whether petitioner knowingly and fraudulently executed a false affidavit of loss. The resolution of the civil cases will not establish the guilt or innocence of the accused in the perjury case, as the purchase of the land or execution of the mortgage has no bearing on the falsity of the affidavit of loss. The cases can proceed independently of each other.

• Certiorari as a substitute for appeal — A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 lies only when there is no appeal nor plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. Certiorari cannot be allowed when a party fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy, and it cannot substitute for a lost appeal.
• Prejudicial question — For a civil action to be considered prejudicial to a criminal case as to cause the suspension of the criminal proceedings, the following requisites must concur: (1) the civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based; (2) the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil action would necessarily determine the guilt or innocence of the accused; and (3) jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal. Absent these requisites, particularly the second, the civil case does not involve a prejudicial question.

• "The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. Accordingly, although the special civil action of certiorari is not proper when an ordinary appeal is available, it may be granted where it is shown that the appeal would be inadequate, slow, insufficient, and will not promptly relieve a party from the injurious effects of the order complained of, or where appeal is inadequate and ineffectual. Nevertheless, certiorari cannot be a substitute for the lost or lapsed remedy of appeal, where such loss is occasioned by the petitioner’s own neglect or error in the choice of remedies."
• "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 case, 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."

• Fajardo v. Bautista, G.R. Nos. 102193-97, 10 May 1994 — Followed. Held that the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive; certiorari is not proper when an ordinary appeal is available.
• Prado v. People, 218 Phil 573 (1984) — Followed. Enumerated the requisites for a civil action to be considered prejudicial to a criminal case.

• Section 2, Rule 41, Rules of Court — Provides the modes of appeal, specifically ordinary appeal from judgments or final orders of the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. Applied to hold that petitioner should have availed of an ordinary appeal from the RTC's final order of dismissal instead of filing a petition for certiorari.
• Sections 6 and 7, Rule 111, Rules of Court — Govern the suspension of criminal actions by reason of prejudicial question and define the elements of a prejudicial question. Applied to determine that the pending civil cases did not constitute a prejudicial question warranting the suspension of the criminal case for perjury.

Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura