People v. Consing JR

CRIMPRO SEC.
7, RULE 111 PREJUDICIAL QUESTION

TITLE: G.R No. 148193
PEOPLE v. CONSING, JR Date: January 16, 2003
Ponente: Ynares-Santiago, J.:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES - PETITIONER RAPHAEL JOSE CONSING JR
RESPONDENT(S)
FACTS:
Case timeline:
1. Respondent Raphael Jose Consing Jr and his mother, Cecilia de la Cruz, represented to Plus Builders,
Inc. (PBI) that they are the true and lawful owner of a parcel of land situated in Imus, Cavite, and
acquired it from Juanito Tan Teng (Juanito) and Po Willie Yu (Po). Relying on the representations,
PBI purchased the questioned lot.
2. Later, PBI discovered that respondent and his mother did not have a valid title over the subject lot,
and it was never sold to them by Juanito and Po. As a result thereof PBI was ousted from the possession
of the disputed lot.
3. PBI demanded from respondent and his mother to return the amount of P 13,369,641.79 alleged to
have been initially paid but to no avail.
4. Respondent filed an action for Injunctive Relief against PBI and other defendants and sought a
declaration that he was merely an agent of his mother and therefore was not under any obligation to
PBI and other defendants on the various transactions.
5. Later, PBI filed against respondent and his mother a complaint for Damages and Attachment.
However, respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum shopping and the pendency of
the action for Injunctive Relief.
6. A criminal case for estafa through falsification of public document was filed against respondent and
his mother. Respondent, however, filed a motion to defer arraignment on the ground of prejudicial
question.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not the pendency of an action for Injunctive Relief, and for Damages and Attachment is a
prejudicial question justifying the suspension of the proceedings in the criminal case - NO
RATIO:
ACTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1. The issue here is whether or not respondent merely acted as an agent of his mother. Hence, even if
respondent is declared merely an agent of his mother in the sale of the questioned lot, he cannot be
adjudged free from criminal liability.
2. An agent or any person may be held liable for conspiring to falsify public documents. Hence, the
determination of the issue involved in herein civil case is irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of the
respondent in the criminal case for estafa through falsification of public documents.
ACTION FOR DAMAGES AND ATTACHMENT
1. The issue here is whether or not respondent and his mother are liable to pay damages and to return the
amount paid by PBI for the purchase of the disputed lot.
2. The resolution of PBIs right to be paid damages and the purchase price will not be determinative of
the culpability of the respondent in the criminal case for even if PBI is held entitled to return the
purchase price plus damages, it does not ipso facto follow that respondent should be held guilty of
estafa through falsification of public document. Stated differently, a ruling of the court in the civil case
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.
3. Furthermore, said action on account of the alleged fraud is an independent civil action under Art. 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.
RULING:
Wherefore, in view of all the foregoing, the instant petition is granted. The decision of the Court of
Appeals is reversed and set aside.
NOTES:
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. 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.
Requisites of prejudicial question:

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

People v. Consing JR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Consing JR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Consing JR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMPRO SEC.

7, RULE 111 PREJUDICIAL QUESTION

Requisites of prejudicial question:

You might also like