Ras vs. Rasul

A civil action for the nullification of an alleged prior deed of sale, based on forgery, raises a prejudicial question that requires suspension of a criminal action for estafa arising from the same alleged double sale, because the resolution of the civil case would necessarily determine the accused’s guilt or innocence.

On or about April 27, 1978, Luis Pichel filed a complaint against Alejandro Ras and Bienvenido Martin before the Court of First Instance of Basilan, docketed as Civil Case No. 73. Pichel prayed for the nullification of the deed of sale executed by Ras in favor of Martin and for the declaration that the prior deed of sale allegedly executed in Pichel’s favor by Ras was valid.

In their answer, the defendants, the Ras spouses, alleged that they never sold the property to Pichel and that the signatures appearing in the deed of sale in favor of Pichel were forgeries. They further alleged that the deed of sale in Pichel’s favor, which Pichel sought to have declared valid, was fictitious and inexistent.

While Civil Case No. 73 was being tried before the Court of First Instance of Basilan, the Provincial Fiscal of Basilan filed on or about September 5, 1978 an Information for Estafa in the same court against Alejandro Ras. The charge arose from the same alleged double sale that was the subject matter of Pichel’s civil complaint and was docketed as Criminal Case No. 240.

On November 6, 1978, Ras, through counsel, filed a Motion for Suspension of Action in Criminal Case No. 240. He claimed that the same facts and issues were involved in both the civil and criminal cases and that the resolution of the issues in the civil case would necessarily be determinative of his guilt or innocence. The Provincial Fiscal of Basilan filed his opposition on December 4, 1978. In his Order of December 12, 1978, the respondent judge saw no prejudicial question and denied the motion. This denial led Ras to file the present petition.

• Prejudicial Question: Petitioner argued that the same facts and issues were involved in both the civil and criminal cases and that the resolution of the issues in the civil case would necessarily be determinative of his guilt or innocence in Criminal Case No. 240.
• Forgery and Nullity of the Prior Sale: Petitioner maintained that he never sold the property to Luis Pichel and that the signatures on the alleged prior deed of sale in Pichel’s favor were forged; the deed was therefore fictitious and inexistent, and if the first sale was void or fictitious, there would be no double sale and he would be innocent of the estafa charge.

• Prejudicial Question: Whether the pendency of Civil Case No. 73, involving the nullity and forgery of the alleged prior deed of sale in favor of Luis Pichel, raises a prejudicial question that requires suspension of Criminal Case No. 240 for estafa.
• Determinativeness of the Civil Case: Whether the resolution of the issues in Civil Case No. 73 would necessarily determine petitioner Alejandro Ras’s guilt or innocence in the estafa prosecution.

• Prejudicial Question: Yes. A prejudicial question exists where the resolution of the civil case is a logical antecedent of the issue in the criminal case and is determinative of the accused’s guilt or innocence, with cognizance over the question lodged in another tribunal.
• Determinativeness of the Civil Case: Yes. The civil case’s resolution of the forgery and nullity of the alleged prior sale would determine whether a double sale occurred; if the prior sale to Pichel was void or fictitious, no estafa could be committed.

• Prejudicial Question: The Court defined a prejudicial question as 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 determinative of the case before the court, but jurisdiction to try and resolve the question must be lodged in another court or tribunal. It is 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 case to be considered prejudicial to a criminal action as to cause suspension of the criminal action pending determination of the civil case, it must appear not only that the civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution is based, but also that the resolution of the issues raised in the civil action would be necessarily determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
• Determinativeness of the Civil Case: Petitioner’s defense in Civil Case No. 73—that the alleged prior deed of sale in favor of Luis Pichel was null and forged—was based on the same facts that would necessarily determine his guilt or innocence in Criminal Case No. 240. If the first alleged sale in favor of Pichel was void or fictitious, there would be no double sale and petitioner would be innocent of the offense charged. A conviction in the criminal case, if it were allowed to proceed ahead, would be a gross injustice and would have to be set aside if the civil action finally decided that the alleged prior deed of sale was a forgery and spurious. The Solicitor General concurred with the petition. The respondent judge’s order denying the motion for suspension was therefore set aside.

• Prejudicial Question — A prejudicial question is 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. It must be determinative of the case before the court, but the jurisdiction to try and resolve the question must be lodged in another court or tribunal. It is 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. In this case, the civil action for nullification and forgery of the alleged prior deed of sale was held to raise a prejudicial question because its resolution would determine whether a double sale existed and thus whether petitioner was guilty of estafa.
• Suspension of Criminal Action by Reason of Prejudicial Question — For a civil case to be considered prejudicial to a criminal action as to cause the suspension of the criminal action pending determination of the civil case, it must appear not only that the civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution is based, but also that the resolution of the issues raised in the civil action would be necessarily determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The Court applied this rule because petitioner’s civil defense of forgery and nullity of the prior sale would necessarily determine his guilt or innocence in the estafa prosecution.

• "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.
• "The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court but the jurisdiction to try and resolve the question must be lodged in another court or tribunal" — This states the determinative and jurisdictional requisites for a prejudicial question.
• "For a civil case to be considered prejudicial to a criminal action as to cause the suspension of the criminal action pending the determination of the civil, it must appear not only that the civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal pro. prosecution is based, but also that the resolution of the issues raised in said civil action would be necessary determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused." — This sets out the two-fold requirement for suspending a criminal action due to a pending civil case.
• "If the first alleged sale in favor of Pichel is void or fictitious, then there would be no double sale and petitioner would be innocent of the offense charged." — This applies the prejudicial-question rule to the facts and explains why the civil case was determinative of guilt or innocence.

• Rojas vs. People, 57 SCRA 246 — Cited in support of the rule that a prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court and that jurisdiction to resolve it must be lodged in another court or tribunal.
• People vs. Aragon, 94 Phil. 357 — Cited with Rojas vs. People for the same requisites of a prejudicial question.
• Zapanta vs. Montessa, 4 SCRA 510 — Cited for the same proposition on the requisites of a prejudicial question.
• Benitez vs. Concepcion, 2 SCRA 178 — Cited for the definition of a prejudicial question as based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but intimately connected with it that determines the guilt or innocence of the accused.
• Mendiola vs. Macadaeg, 1 SCRA 593 — Cited for the rule that a civil case is prejudicial to a criminal action only if it involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution is based and its resolution would necessarily determine the accused’s guilt or innocence.

• Justice Makasiar
• Justice Fernandez
• Justice Guerrero
• Justice Melencio-Herrera