5. Prejudicial Question

Prejudicial Question

It arises in a case, the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in the criminal case and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal (Omictin v. CA, G.R. No.148004, January 22, 2007)

A prejudicial question is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime, but so intimately connected with it that its ascertainment determines the guilt or innocence of the accused. For it to suspend the criminal action, it must appear not only that the civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based, but also that in the resolution of the issue or issue raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined (J. Caguioa, Mathay v. Mathay, G.R. No. 218964, 2020).

Suspension of the criminal case due to a prejudicial question is only a procedural matter, and is subject to a waiver by virtue of prior acts of the accused.

Purpose: To avoid two conflicting decisions (Jose v. Suarez, 556 SCRA 773).

Time to Plead

A petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation. Even during preliminary investigation, a petition for suspension based on prejudicial question can be filed before the investigating officer.

When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests (Rule 111, Sec. 6).

Elements of Prejudicial Question based on Jurisprudence

• The civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based
• 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
• Jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal. (People v. Arambulo, G.R. No. 186597, 2015)

Elements of Prejudicial Question Based on the Rules of Court

• The previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action.
• The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed (Rule 111, Sec. 7).

In a case where one party filed a civil case to nullify a share purchase agreement (civil case #1) while the other party sought an injunction on the subsequent transfer of shares (civil case #2) and then filed a criminal action for qualified theft, the criminal proceeding may be suspended on the ground of a prejudicial question. Should the court rule that the share purchase agreement is invalid in the first civil case and should the court declare in the second civil case that she is not entitled to the return of the stocks, there is no taking of personal property with intent to gain. Hence, a prejudicial question exists as the issues are intimately connected and its ascertainment determines the guilt or innocence of the accused (Mathay v. People, G.R. No. 218964, June 30, 2020).

Requirement of Previous Civil Action and Subsequent Criminal Action

General Rule: The civil action must be previously instituted vis-à-vis a criminal action for the doctrine of prejudicial question to apply (Rule 111, Sec. 6).

Exception: The Supreme Court has relaxed this rule in terms of the scope of application, extending it to a previously instituted administrative case and a subsequent civil case (Quiambao v. Osorio, G.R. No. L-48157, 1998) and also a previously instituted administrative case and a subsequent criminal case (San Miguel Properties, Inc. vs. Sec. Hernando Perez, G.R. No. 166836, 2013).

The Supreme Court acknowledged in those cases that there was an INTIMATE CORRELATION OR INTIMATE RELATION between the two cases.

The annulment of marriage is not a prejudicial question in the criminal case for parricide. (Joselito Pimentel v. Maria C. Pimentel, G.R.172060, 2010).

A prejudicial question need not conclusively resolve the guilt or innocence of the accused. It is enough that it tests the sufficiency of the allegations in the information in order to sustain further prosecution of the criminal case. (San Miguel Properties v. Perez, G.R. No. 192253, 2013)

The phrase “previously instituted” in Rule 111 Section 7 was inserted to qualify the nature of the civil action involved in a prejudicial question in relation to the criminal action. This interpretation is further buttressed by the insertion of the word “subsequent” directly before the term criminal action. There is no other logical explanation other than the civil action must precede the criminal action for there to be a prejudicial question. (Dreamwork Construction v. Janiola and Famini, G.R. No. 184861, 2009)

B.P. 22 controversies generally present a special class of cases with consistent rulings against the appreciation of a prejudicial question. The issue in the criminal cases is whether the petitioner is guilty of violating B.P. 22, while in the civil case, it is whether the private respondents are entitled to collect form the petitioner the sum or the value of the checks. The resolution in the civil action is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal action. Mere issuance of the worthless check with knowledge of the insufficiency of funds constitutes the crime. (Yap v. Cabales, G.R. No. 159186, 2009)

An independent civil action based on fraud initiated by the defrauded party does not raise a prejudicial question to stop the proceedings in a pending criminal prosecution of the defendant for estafa through falsification. The result of the independent civil action is irrelevant to the issue of guilt or innocence of the accused. In no case, however, may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action. (Consing, Jr. vs. People, G.R. No. 161075, 2013)

A prejudicial question in an administrative case filed with the HLURB suspends the criminal action because the action for specific performance was civil in nature but could not be instituted elsewhere except in the HLURB whose jurisdiction over the action was exclusive and original. (San Miguel Properties v. Perez, G.R. No. 192253, 2013).