People of the Philippines vs. Rafael Jose Consing, Jr.

The pendency of civil actions for injunctive relief and damages arising from the same facts as a criminal prosecution for estafa through falsification does not constitute a prejudicial question where the resolution of the civil issues would not necessarily determine the guilt or innocence of the accused; a civil action for damages based on fraud is an independent civil action under Article 33 of the Civil Code and may proceed independently of the criminal action.

Rafael Jose Consing, Jr. and his mother Cecilia de la Cruz were the transferors of a 42,443-square-meter lot in Imus, Cavite covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 687599 in Cecilia de la Cruz’s name to Plus Builders, Inc. The transaction implicated the rule on prejudicial questions in criminal procedure and the independent civil action for damages based on fraud under Article 33 of the Civil Code.

Sometime in February 1997, Rafael Jose Consing, Jr. and his mother Cecilia de la Cruz represented to Plus Builders, Inc. (PBI) that they were the true and lawful owners of a 42,443-square-meter lot situated in Imus, Cavite and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 687599 in the name of Cecilia de la Cruz. They further represented that they acquired the lot, previously covered by TCT No. 191408, from Juanito Tan Teng and Po Willie Yu. Relying on these representations, PBI purchased the questioned lot.

In April 1999, PBI discovered that respondent and his mother did not have a valid title over the subject lot. PBI learned that Juanito Tan Teng and Po Willie Yu never sold the lot to respondent and his mother and that TCT No. 191408, upon which TCT No. 687599 was based, was not on file with the Register of Deeds. In August 1999, PBI was ousted from possession of the disputed lot by Juanito Tan Teng and Po Willie Yu. Despite written and verbal demands, respondent and his mother refused to return the amount of P13,369,641.79 alleged to have been initially paid by PBI.

On July 22, 1999, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 68, an action for “Injunctive Relief” docketed as Civil Case No. SCA 1759, against PBI, Unicapital Inc., Unicapital Realty Inc., Jaime Martires, Mariano D. Martinez, Cecilia de la Cruz, and 20 other John Does. Respondent sought a declaration that he was merely an agent of his mother, Cecilia de la Cruz, and therefore was not under any obligation to PBI and the other defendants on the various transactions involving TCT No. 687599. On October 13, 1999, PBI filed against respondent and his mother a complaint for “Damages and Attachment,” docketed as Civil Case No. 99-95381, with Branch 12 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum shopping and pendency of Civil Case No. SCA 1759.

On January 21, 2000, a criminal case for estafa through falsification of public document was filed against respondent Rafael Jose Consing, Jr. and his mother with the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite. On April 7, 2000, respondent filed a motion to defer arraignment on the ground of prejudicial question, citing the pendency of Civil Case Nos. SCA 1759 and 99-95381. The trial court denied the motion, and a motion for reconsideration was likewise denied on February 27, 2001.

• Prejudicial Question: Respondent moved to defer arraignment on the ground of prejudicial question, citing the pendency of Civil Case Nos. SCA 1759 and 99-95381.
• Agency: In Civil Case No. SCA 1759, respondent sought a declaration that he was merely an agent of his mother, Cecilia de la Cruz, and therefore not under any obligation to PBI and the other defendants on the transactions involving TCT No. 687599.

• Prejudicial Question: Whether the pendency of Civil Case Nos. SCA 1759 and 99-95381, for Injunctive Relief and for Damages and Attachment, is a prejudicial question justifying the suspension of the proceedings in the criminal case for estafa through falsification of public document filed against respondent.

• Prejudicial Question: No. The pendency of the civil cases does not justify suspension because their resolution would not necessarily determine respondent’s guilt or innocence in the criminal case; moreover, Civil Case No. 99-95381 is an independent civil action under Article 33 of the Civil Code and may proceed independently of the criminal action.

• Prejudicial Question: A prejudicial question is one that arises in a case, the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. It must be based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines guilt or innocence. For a civil action to be considered prejudicial to a criminal case, the following requisites must concur: (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. If both civil and criminal cases have similar issues or the issue in one is intimately related to the issues raised in the other, 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 necessarily be 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, the civil case does not involve a prejudicial question. In this case, the issue in Civil Case No. SCA 1759 for Injunctive Relief is whether respondent merely acted as an agent of his mother, Cecilia de la Cruz; even if respondent is declared merely an agent, he cannot be adjudged free from criminal liability, because an agent or any person may be held liable for conspiring to falsify public documents. Thus, the determination of that issue is irrelevant to his guilt or innocence in the criminal case. The issue in Civil Case No. 99-95381 for Damages and Attachment is whether 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 PBI is held entitled to the return of the purchase price plus damages, it does not ipso facto follow that respondent should be held guilty of estafa through falsification of public document; conversely, a ruling that PBI should not be paid the purchase price plus damages will not necessarily absolve respondent of liability in the criminal case, where his guilt may still be established under penal laws as determined by other evidence. Moreover, neither is there a prejudicial question if the civil and criminal action can, according to law, proceed independently of each other. Under Rule 111, Section 3 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, in the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code, the independent civil action may be brought by the offended party; it shall proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence, and the offended party may not recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action. Civil Case No. 99-95381, 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 Article 33 of the Civil Code. As such, it will not operate as a prejudicial question that will justify the suspension of the criminal case. The Court followed Rojas vs. People, where a civil case for termination of management contract, one cause of action of which was based on the same chattel mortgage that gave rise to a criminal charge under Article 319 of the Revised Penal Code, did not constitute a prejudicial question because the civil liability resolution would not determine criminal liability and both cases could proceed independently under Article 33.

• Prejudicial Question — A question that arises in a case, the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. It must be based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused. For a civil action to be considered prejudicial to a criminal case, the following requisites must concur: (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. The Court applied this doctrine and found no prejudicial question because the civil issues—whether respondent was merely an agent and whether he and his mother were liable for damages—would not necessarily determine his guilt or innocence in the estafa through falsification case.
• Independent Civil Action for Fraud under Article 33 — Under Article 33 of the Civil Code, in cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action for damages is entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action and shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, requiring only a preponderance of evidence. Rule 111, Section 3 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure recognizes that such independent civil action may be brought by the offended party and shall proceed independently of the criminal action, with no double recovery for the same act or omission. The Court applied this doctrine to Civil Case No. 99-95381, holding that because it was a damages action based on alleged fraud, it was an independent civil action and could not operate as a prejudicial question.
• Agency Does Not Preclude Criminal Liability for Falsification — An agent or any person may be held liable for conspiring to falsify public documents. The Court applied this principle in rejecting respondent’s argument that a declaration that he was merely an agent of his mother would absolve him from criminal liability; even if he were declared an agent, he could still be held criminally liable for conspiracy to falsify public documents.

• "A prejudicial question is defined as that which arises in a case, the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal." — This is the Court’s canonical definition of a prejudicial question, framing the threshold inquiry for whether criminal proceedings should be suspended.
• "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." — This passage sets out the three requisites for a prejudicial question, which the Court found absent.
• "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." — This is the ratio for rejecting the injunctive relief case as a prejudicial question, because agency does not negate criminal liability for falsification.
• "In the instant case, Civil Case No. 99-95381, 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 Article 33 of the Civil Code. As such, it will not operate as a prejudicial question that will justify the suspension of the criminal case at bar." — This passage applies Article 33 and explains why the damages case cannot suspend the criminal proceedings.

• Rojas vs. People, 156 Phil. 224 [1974] — The Court cited and followed this precedent. In Rojas, the accused was charged with violation of Article 319 of the Revised Penal Code for executing a new chattel mortgage without the previous mortgagee’s consent; a civil case for termination of management contract included a cause of action based on the same chattel mortgage. The Court affirmed the denial of suspension, ruling that the civil case’s resolution would not determine criminal liability and that both cases could proceed independently under Article 33 of the Civil Code. Here, the Court used Rojas to support its conclusion that Civil Case No. 99-95381, based on fraud, was an independent civil action and could not be a prejudicial question.
• Sabandal vs. Tongco, et al., G.R. No. 124498, October 5, 2001 — Cited for the requisites of a prejudicial question and for the rule that there is no prejudicial question if the civil and criminal actions can proceed independently of each other. The Court relied on this formulation in analyzing the civil cases against respondent.

• Rule 111, Section 3, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure — Provides that in cases under Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code, the independent civil action may be brought by the offended party; it shall proceed independently of the criminal action and requires only a preponderance of evidence, and the offended party may not recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action. Applied: because Civil Case No. 99-95381 is an independent civil action, it cannot justify suspension of the criminal case.
• Article 33, Civil Code — Provides that in cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. Applied: the damages and attachment case based on alleged fraud is an independent civil action and cannot operate as a prejudicial question.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.