1.
Petitioner Coscolluela served as governor of Negros Occidental for 3
[31] Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan (First Division)
July 15, 2013 | Perlas-Bernabe | Acquittal
Petitioner: Coscolluela, Nacionales, Malvas, Amugod
Respondent: Sandiganbayan (First Division), People of the Philippines, OMB
Recit-Ready:
The Ombudsman received a complaint in 2001. The complaint requests the
assistance of the OMB in investigating the anomalous purchase of medical and
agricultural equipment by petitioners who are public officials of the Province of
Negros. The purchase amounted to P20 million. An information dated March
27, 2003 was only approved by the Acting Ombudsman in 2009 and ultimately,
an information was filed before the Sandiganbayan only on June 19, 2009.
Petitioners filed for a Motion to Quash alleging a violation of their constitutional
right to speedy disposition of cases.1 This was denied by the Sandiganbayan.
MR was likewise denied.
The Court ruled that Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in deciding
so. There was a violation of the constitutional right of petitioners as the
preliminary investigation proceedings took almost 8 years. Because such
dismissal is in order before the presentation of evidence, the Court cannot make
pronouncements as to whether petitioners indeed committed acts or omissions
which may give rise to civil liability. Absent this pronouncement, the Province is
not precluded from filing a subsequent civil case based on delict to recover the
P20million in public funds attributable to petitioners’ alleged malfeasance.
Doctrine: An acquittal in a criminal case does not bar the private offended party
from pursuing a subsequent civil case based on the delict, unless the judgment
of acquittal explicitly declares that the act or omission from which the civil
liability may arise did not exist. Absent this pronouncement, the private
offended party may institute a subsequent civil case based on the delict to
recover the civil liability.
FACTS:
1Philippine Constitution, Article III, Sec. 16. All persons shall have the right to a
speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasijudicial, or administrative
bodies.
full terms which ended on 2001. During his tenure, petitioners served
as: Nacionales – Special Projects Division Head, Amugod –
subordinate of Nacionales, and Malvas – Provincial Health Officer.
2. One month before stepping down from office, a purchase of medical
and agricultural equipment for the province was made amounting to
P20million.
3. On November 9, 2001, the Office of the Ombudsman of Visayas (OMB-
V) received a letter-complaint requesting assistance to investigate the
anomalous purchase.
Acting on the complaint, OMB conducted an investigation and issued
a Final Evaluation Report on April 16, 2002 which upgraded the
complaint into a criminal case against petitioners. Consequently,
petitioners filed their counter-affidavits.
March 27, 2003 – assigned Graft Investigation Officer Canares
prepared a Resolution finding probable cause against petitioners for
violation of Section 3(e’) of RA 3019. And recommended filing of
information. Said information was prepared and submitted to Deputy
of OMB-V Miro.
June 5, 2003 – Miro recommended approval of information
May 21, 2009 – Final approval of Acting Ombudsman Casimiro
June 19, 2009 – Information was filed before the Sandiganbayan
4. Cosscolluela filed a Motion to Quash on the ground that his
constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases was violated as
criminal charges against him were resolved after almost 8 yrs since
complaint was instituted. Other petitioners adopted said motion.
5. Opposition explains that although Information was originally dated
March 27, 2003 it still had to go through careful review and revision
before final approval and that petitioners never raised any objections
during interim.
6. Sandiganbayan Ruling: Denied motion to Quash
a. It held that the preliminary investigation against petitioners
was actually resolved by Canares on March 27, 2003 (1yr 4m)
 b. That these issuances had to go through careful review at b. They were unaware that the investigation against them were
various levels and the period of delay of roughly 6 yrs cannot still on-going. They were only informed of the March 27, 2003
be deemed inordinate. Resolution after the lapse of 6years when they received a
c. Motion for Reconsideration denied copy of it after its filing with SB on June 19, 2009.
7. Hence this petition. c. As respondents in the PI, it was not their duty to follow-up on
the prosecution of their case.
ISSUES: 4. Prejudice caused by such delay
a. There is inability of a defendant to adequately prepare his
1. Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in finding case skews the fairness of the entire system. There is also
that petitioners’ right to speedy disposition of cases was not violated prejudice if the defense witnesses are unable to recall
– YES. accurately the events of the distant past.(Corpuz v.
2. Whether or not petitioners are exculpated from civil liability – NO. Sandiganbayan)
On issue #2
RATIO:
While the pronouncement should, as a matter of course, result to acquittal of
On Issue #1
petitioners, it does not follow that they are entirely exculpated from any civil
In the determination of whether defendant has been denied his right to speedy
liability, assuming that the same is proven in a subsequent case which the
disposition of cases, the following factors are considered:
Province may opt to pursue. Section 2, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court provides
1. Length of delay
that an acquittal in a criminal case does not bar the private offended party
a. Preliminary investigation (PI) proceedings took a protracted
from pursuing a subsequent civil case based on delict, unless the judgment of
amount of time to complete
acquittal explicitly declares that the act or omission from which the civil
b. Contrary to what SB claimed that the PI terminated on March
liability may arise did not exist.
27, 2003, the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the
Ombudsman provide that there is no complete resolution of a
The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil
case under PI until the Ombudsman approves the
unless extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact
investigating officer’s recommendation to either file an
from which the civil might arise did not exist. In other cases, person entitled to
Information with SB or dismiss the complaint.
civil action may institute it in the jurisdiction and in the manner provided by
c. Proceedings were terminated only on May 21, 2009 or almost
law against the person who may be liable for restitution of the thing and
8 years after filing of complaint.
reparation or indemnity of the damage suffered. The case is dismissed before
2. Reasons for delay
presentation of evidence. Thus, the Court is unable to make a definite
a. There was appears to be no justifiable basis as to why the
pronouncement as to whether petitioners indeed committed acts or
OMB could not have earlier resolved the PI
omissions which may give rise to civil liability as prescribed under Section 2,
3. Assertion of or failure to assert such right by the accused
Rule 120 of the Rules of Court.2 Absent this pronouncement, the Province is
a. Petitioners could not be faulted for their alleged failure to
not precluded from filing a subsequent civil case based on delict to recover
assert their right
the amount of P20million in public funds attributable to petitioners’ alleged
malfeasance.

2 Contents of judgment his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In either case, the judgment shall determine if the
XXX act or omission from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.
In case the judgment is of acquittal, it shall state whether the evidence of the
prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of accused or merely failed to prove
 3. 3A  told  her  mother,  and  after  an  examination,  the  doctor  said 
11 People of the Philippines v Lino Alejandro y Pimentel  that there was evidence of sexual intercourse.  

January 11, 2018 | Tijam | Acquittal | Vince  RTC 

Petitioner: Lino Alendro y Pimentel, Accused-Appellant 
1. July  26,  2011. The RTC ​ACQUITTED the accused. But this was 
 
recalled  upon  ​MANIFESTATION  ​of  the  Assistant  Prosecutor 
 
(AP). 
Recit-Ready:   
2. The  AP  said  that  there  were  orders  placed  in  the  Criminal 
Accused-appellant,  Alejandro,  was  charged  with 2 counts of rape in the 
record  Case  No.  Br.  20-479  (CASE  A)  involving  the  same 
lower  court.  After the trial, he was acquitted; however, on the same day, 
accused  but  a  different  complainant-victim,  which  if 
the  Judge  recalled  the decision on the ground that he ruled on the case 
considered  will  result  in  a  different  verdict.  The  Order  dated 
based  on  the  wrong  records.  After  the  recall,  the  accused  was 
Sep  24  showed  that  complainant  3A  has  actually  testified  in 
convicted.  The  CA  upheld  the  conviction.  Hence  the  appeal  in  the 
court.  
Supreme Court.  
3. (IN  OTHER  WORDS)  The  decided  the  case  based  on  the 
 
records involving another case involving the accused.  
The  SC  held  that  the  RTC  erred  in  recalling  the  the  judgement  and 
4.   Accused  filed  a  ​Motion  for  Reconsideration​,  but  it  was 
subsequently  convicting  the  accused.  All  convictions  are  final  and 
denied. 
executory and can only be appealed by c ​ ertiorari ​(Rule 65).  
5. The  RTC  then  rendered  a  Decision  ​CONVICTING  ​the  accused 
 
for the two counts of rape 
Doctrine: 
Too elementary is the rule that a decision once final is no longer
CA 
susceptible to amendment or alteration except to correct errors which
are clerical in· nature, to clarify any ambiguity caused by an omission or 1. The  Accused  appealed  to  the  CA,  contending  that  the  RTC 
mistake in the dispositive portion or to rectify a travesty of justice gravely  erred  in  recalling  its  previously  promulgated  decision 
brought about by a ​moro-moro or mock trial. A final decision is the law acquitting him.  
of the case and is immutable and unalterable regardless of any claim of 2. The CA ​DISMISSED t​ he appeal, ​AFFIRMING​ the conviction 
error or incorrectness.  3. They  ruled  that  the  initial  decision  acquitting  the  accused 
failed to express clearly and distinctly the facts 
FACTS: 
Hence this appeal 
1. Alejandro  was  charged  of  2  charges  of  Rape  of  a  12  year  old 
minor under Article 266-A, Par1(a) of the RPC.   Petitioner’s Arguments 
2. 3A  testified  that  the  accused  raped  her  behind  a  school.  And 
1. RTC  has  no  power  to  rectify  such  mistake  because  an 
on  another  instance,  he  went  into  3A’s  house  and  then  raped 
acquittal attained finality after valid promulgation  
her there.  
 2. The  Order  recalling  his  acquittal  violated  his  right  against  2. Grave abuse of discretion (GAD)  
Double Jeopardy    
NONE​ of the exceptions exist in this case 
  - A mere manifestation is not sufficient to assail an 
acquittal 
ISSUES:   
- The proper remedy is a p ​ etition for certiorari u
​ nder 
Rule 65​ because this is the only remedy that can assail 
Was the Accused’s right against Double Jeopardy violated? Y
​ ES 
an acquittal 
Can  the  RTC  recall  an  acquittal  on  the  ground  that  they  ruled  on  the  - The acquittal was not even questioned on the basis of 
case based on records involving a different case? ​NO  GAD. It was only through a manifestation by the 
prosecutor that appraised the RTC of the mistake.  
   
The case is similar to Argel v Judge Pascua 
RATIO:  - Too elementary is the rule that a decision once final is no
  longer susceptible to amendment or alteration except to
  correct errors which are clerical in· nature, to clarify any
The accused’s right against DB was violated  ambiguity caused by an omission or mistake in the dispositive
- In our jurisdiction, we adhere to the f​ inality-of-acquittal  portion or to rectify a travesty of justice brought about by a
doctrine​, that is, a judgement of acquittal is​ final and  moro-moro or mock trial. A final decision is the law of the case
unappealable.  and is immutable and unalterable regardless of any claim of
- The Elements of double jeopardy are  error or incorrectness.
- Valid information  - The power of the court to modify its order or decision ​does not
- Court of competent jurisdiction  extent to a judgement of acquittal​ in a criminal case
- Accused has been arraigned and had pleaded 
- The accused was convicted or acquitted or the case  In this case
was dismissed without his consent  - RTC was reminded that private complainant testified during
- In the case, ​ALL​ the elements were present.  trial, only after it had rendered a decision.
- Was is peculiar is that the acquittal was rendered based on the  - It realized it made a mistake, and hence recalled the
mistaken notion that the private complainant failed to testify  judgement for the purpose of correcting the error.
because of the mix-up of orders.   - THIS IS NOT ALLOWED for it would violate the
- However, ​this does not change the fact that a judgement of  constitutionally protected right against double Jeopardy
acquittal had already been promulgated 
  Hence
Exceptions to double jeopardy  - Appeal is ​GRANTED​ and the accused is ​ACQUITTED
1. When there has been a deprivation of due process and a   
finding of a mistrial 

33 Dreamwork Construction v. Janiola
June 30, 2009 | VELASCO, JR., J | Prejudicial Question | Sha Kumar
Petitioner: DREAMWORK CONSTRUCTION, INC
Respondent: CLEOFE S. JANIOLA and HON. ARTHUR A. FAMINI
Recit-Ready:
Petitioner separately filed both a civil case and a criminal case for violation of
BP 22 against Janiola. After more than 1 year, Janiola filed a Complaint for the
rescission of a construction agreement between the 2 parties. Subsequently,
Janiola filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings in Criminal Case on the basis of
Prejudicial Question using Art. 33 of CC as basis. The Court ruled that Section
7 of Rule 111 of the RoC provides that one of the elements of prejudicial
question is the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or
intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action. In the
case at bar, the civil case filed by Janiola came after the petitioner’s criminal
complant. Hence, the Court ruled against Janiola.
Doctrine: Prejudicial question is understood in law as that which must precede
the criminal action and which requires a decision before a final judgment can be
rendered in the criminal action with which said question is closely connected.
The civil action must be instituted prior to the institution of the criminal
action
FACTS:
1. Oct. 18, 2004- petitioner, filed a Complaint Affidavit for violation of BP
22 against private respondent Janiola with the Office of the City
Prosecutor.
2. Feb. 2, 2005- petitioner filed a criminal information for violation of BP
22 with the MTC.
3. Sept. 20, 2006- Janiola instituted a civil complaint with the RTC
against petitioner by filing a Complaint for the rescission of an alleged
construction agreement between the parties.
4. Janiola filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings in Criminal Case
alleging that the civil and criminal cases involved facts and issues
similar or intimately related such that in the resolution of the issues in
the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily
be determined (aka prejudicial question)
5. Petitioner opposed the suspension of the proceedings on the grounds
that:
a. there is no prejudicial question in this case as the rescission
of the contract upon which the bouncing checks were issued
is a separate and distinct issue from the issue of whether
private respondent violated BP 22;
b. Section 7, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court states that one of
the elements of a prejudicial question is that "the previously
instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately
related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action"
thus, this element is missing in this case, the criminal case
having preceded the civil case.
s. MTC ruling: Granted Motion to Suspend Proceedings
a. Motion for suspension of a criminal action may be filed at
any time before the prosecution rests (Section 6, Rule
111, Revised Rules of Court).
b. MTC denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration
t. Petitioner appealed the Orders to the RTC
u. RTC ruling: denied appeal
a. The fact that the civil action was filed after the criminal
action was instituted does not render the issues in the civil
action any less prejudicial in character
v. Petitioner’s contention: in order for a civil case to create a
prejudicial question, it must first be established that the civil case
was filed previous to the filing of the criminal case.
w. Janiola’s contention:
a. Art. 36 of CC: “Pre-judicial questions which must be
decided before any criminal prosecution may be instituted
or may proceed, shall be governed by rules of court which
the Supreme Court shall promulgate and which shall not
be in conflict with the provisions of this Code”
b. a prejudicial question exists when the civil action is filed
either before the institution of the criminal action or during
the pendency of the criminal action.
x. Hence, this petition under Rule 45.
ISSUES:
WON the lower court erred in not perceiving grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the inferior court when it ruled to suspend proceedings in the criminal
case on the basis of prejudicial question in the civil case. YES
RATIO:
Section 7 of Rule 111 (2000 Rules on Crim Pro which amended the 1985
Rules) applies here and now provides:
SEC. 7. Elements of prejudicial question.— The elements of a
prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil
action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue
raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution
of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may
proceed.
The Court ruled in Torres v. Garchitorena that :
Under the amendment, a prejudicial question is understood in
law as that which must precede the criminal action and which
requires a decision before a final judgment can be rendered in
the criminal action with which said question is closely connected.
The civil action must be instituted prior to the institution of
the criminal action.
In the instant case, Art. 36 of the Civil Code and Sec. 7 of Rule 111 of the
Rules of Court are susceptible of an interpretation that would harmonize both
provisions of law. The phrase "previously instituted civil action" in Sec. 7 of
Rule 111 is plainly worded and is not susceptible of alternative interpretations.
The clause "before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed"
in Art. 36 of the Civil Code may, however, be interpreted to mean that the
motion to suspend the criminal action may be filed during the preliminary
investigation with the public prosecutor or court conducting the investigation,
or during the trial with the court hearing the case.
This interpretation would harmonize Art. 36 of the Civil Code with Sec. 7 of
Rule 111 of the Rules of Court but also with Sec. 6 of Rule 111 of the Civil
Code, which provides for the situations when the motion to suspend the
criminal action during the preliminary investigation or during the trial may be
filed. Sec. 6 provides:
SEC. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. — 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. 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.
Thus, under the principles of statutory construction, it is this interpretation of
Art. 36 of the Civil Code that should govern in order to give effect to all the
relevant provisions of law.
Also, it is worth noting that the civil case was instituted more than two and a
half (2 1/2) years from the time that private respondent allegedly stopped
construction of the proposed building for no valid reason. It bears pointing out
that the circumstances indicate that the filing of the civil action and the
subsequent move to suspend the criminal proceedings by reason of the
presence of a prejudicial question were a mere afterthought and instituted to
delay the criminal proceedings.
In any event, even if the civil case here was instituted prior to the criminal
action, there is, still, no prejudicial question to speak of that would justify
the suspension of the proceedings in the criminal case. This Court has held in
a long line of cases that the agreement surrounding the issuance of dishonored
checks is irrelevant to the prosecution for violation of BP 22. It must be
emphasized that the gravamen of the offense charge is the issuance of a bad
check. The clear intention of the framers of B.P. 22 is to make the mere act of
issuing a worthless check malum prohibitum.
Verily, even if the trial court in the civil case declares that the
construction agreement between the parties is void for lack of
consideration, this would not affect the prosecution of private
respondent in the criminal case. The fact of the matter is that private
respondent indeed issued checks which were subsequently dishonored for
insufficient funds. It is this fact that is subject of prosecution under BP 22.
Therefore, it is clear that the second element required for the existence of a
prejudicial question, that the resolution of the issue in the civil action would
determine whether the criminal action may proceed, is absent in the instant
case. Thus, no prejudicial question exists and the rules on it are inapplicable
to the case before us.
 one that arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the
PIMENTEL v. PIMENTEL
issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal.
September 13, 2010 | Carpio, J. | Prejudicial Question | Laforteza
Section 7. Elements of Prejudicial Question. - The elements of a prejudicial
Petitioner: JOSELITO R. PIMENTEL question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar
Respondent: MARIA CHRY SANTINE L. PIMENTEL and PEOPLE OF THE or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action and
PHILIPPINES (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action
may proceed.

Recit-Ready: Maria Pimentel filed an action for frustrated parricide before RTC
FACTS:
Quezon City, Branch 223. Petitioner received summons to appear before RTC
Antipolo, Branch 72, for pre-trial and trial for a Civil Case for Declaration of
1. In October 25, 2004, Maria Pimentel filed an action for frustrated
Nullity of Marriage due to psychological incapacity. Petitioner filed an urgent
parricide before RTC Quezon City, Branch 223.
motion to suspend the criminal proceedings because there was a prejudicial
question. He asserted that since the relationship between the Victim and the
2. In February 7, 2005, Petitioner received summons to appear before
Offender is a key element in Parricide, the outcome of the Civil case would have
RTC Antipolo, Branch 72, for pre-trial and trial for a Civil Case for
a bearing in the Criminal Case. The RTC held that the civil case is not a
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage due to psychological incapacity.
prejudicial question because the issues in the Criminal case are the injuries
Four days later, Petitioner filed an urgent motion to suspend the
sustained by respondent and whether the case could be tried even if the validity
criminal proceedings because there was a prejudicial question. He
of their marriage is in question. MR Denied. On certiorari with application for a
asserted that since the relationship between the Victim and the
writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order before the CA,
Offender is a key element in Parricide, the outcome of the Civil case
the appellate court dismissed the petition. It held that the issue in the criminal
would have a bearing in the Criminal Case.
case was whether the offender commenced the crime of Parricide by overt acts
but did not perform all of them due to some other cause other than his
3. The RTC held that the civil case is not a prejudicial question because
spontaneous desistance, while in the civil action, the issue is whether petitioner
the issues in the Criminal case are the injuries sustained by
is psychologically incapacitated to comply with marital obligations. Even if the
respondent and whether the case could be tried even if the validity of
marriage would be declared void, it would be immaterial in the criminal case
their marriage is in question. MR Denied.
because the crime happened during the marriage. The issue was whether the
resolution of the civil case is a prejudicial question that warrants the suspension
4. On certiorari with application for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or
of the criminal case. The SC held that it is not. It did not fit the elements of a
temporary restraining order before the CA, the appellate court
prejudicial question under Section 7, Rule 111 because the criminal case was
dismissed the petition. It held that the issue in the criminal case was
instituted before the civil case. Further, the relationship between the offender
whether the offender commenced the crime of Parricide by overt acts
and the victim is key in Parricide, and if the marriage be declared void in the civil
but did not perform all of them due to some other cause other than his
case, the fact remains that when the crime happened, they were still married.
spontaneous desistance, while in the civil action, the issue is whether
petitioner is psychologically incapacitated to comply with marital
obligations. Even if the marriage would be declared void, it would be
Doctrine: A prejudicial question is defined as:
immaterial in the criminal case because the crime happened during
the marriage.
ISSUES: Whether the resolution of the civil case is a prejudicial question that
warrants the suspension of the criminal case - NO
RATIO:
I. Elements of a Prejudicial Question
Section 7. Elements of Prejudicial Question. - The elements of a prejudicial
question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar
or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action and
(b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action
may proceed.
The Civil case must be instituted first before the criminal case. In this case:
Information for Parricide: August 30, 2004
Raffled to QC: October 25, 2004
Pre-trial and Trial: February 14, 2005
Summons for Civil Case: February 7, 2005
Respondent’s Petition for Civil case: November 4, 2004, filed the next day.
The Criminal case was filed first.
II. Annulment of Marriage not a Prejudicial Question.
There is a prejudicial question when a civil action and a criminal action are
both pending, and there exists in the civil action an issue which must be
preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed because
howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be
determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case.
The relationship between the offender and the victim is a key element in the
crime of parricide,12 which punishes any person "who shall kill his father,
mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants or
descendants, or his spouse." The relationship distinguishes the crime from
murder or homicide. However, the issue in the annulment of marriage is not
similar or intimately related to the issue in the criminal case for parricide.
Further, the relationship between the offender and the victim is not
determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
The issue in the civil case for annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the
Family Code is whether petitioner is psychologically incapacitated to comply
with the essential marital obligations. The issue in parricide is whether the
accused killed the victim. In this case, since petitioner was charged with
frustrated parricide, the issue is whether he performed all the acts of execution
which would have killed respondent as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of
petitioner’s will. Even if the marriage between petitioner and respondent is
annulled, petitioner could still be held criminally liable since at the time of the
commission of the alleged crime, he was still married to respondent.
Petitioner’s reliance on Tenebro v. Court of Appeals that "the judicial
declaration of the nullity of a marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity retroacts to the date of the celebration of the marriage insofar as
the vinculum between the spouses is concerned" is untenable. First, the issue
in Tenebro is the effect of the judicial declaration of nullity of a second or
subsequent marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity on a criminal
liability for bigamy. There was no issue of prejudicial question in that case.
Second, the Court ruled in Tenebro that "there is a recognition written into the
law itself that such a marriage, although void ab initio, may still produce legal
consequences."
 #14 - SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES, INC. PEREZ  FACTS:  

September 4, 2013 | Bersamin, J. | Prejudicial Question |  1. Petitioner  San  Miguel  Properties,  Inc.,  a  domestic  corporation 
engaged  in  the  real  estate  business,  purchased  in  1992,  1993  and 
Petitioner: SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES, INC. 
April  1993  from  BF  Homes,  Inc.,  130  residential  lots  situated  in  BF 
Respondent:  ​SEC.  HERNANDO  B.  PEREZ,  ALBERT  C.  AGUIRRE, 
Homes  Parañaque,  containing  a  total  area  of  44,345  sq.  meters  for 
TEODORO  B.  ARECENAS,  JR.,  MAXY  S.  ABAD,  JAMES  G.  BARBERS,  the  aggregate  price  of  P106,248,000.00.  Such  transactions  were 
STEPHEN  N.  SARINO,  ENRIQUE  N.  ZALAMEA,  JR.,  MARIANO  M.  contained in three separate deeds of sale. 
MARTIN,  ORLANDO  O.  SAMSON,  CATHERINE  R.  AGUIRRE  and  2. The  TCTs  covering  the  lots  contained  in  the  first  and  second  deeds 
ANTONIO V. AGCAOILI  of  sale  were  fully delivered to San Miguel Properties, but 20/41 TCTs 
  contained  in  the  third  deed  of  sales  amounting  to  P39,122,627.00 
  were NOT delivered to San Miguel Properties. 
  3. BF  Homes  claimed  that  it  withheld  the  delivery  of  the  20  TCTs 
Recit-Ready:  San Miguel Properties purchased 130 lots which were contained  because  Atty.  Orendain  (represented  BF  Homes  in  the  said 
in  three  separate  deeds  of sale from BF Homes, represented by Atty. Orendain  transactions  above  and  was  the  duly  authorized  rehabilitation 
at  that  time.  20  out  of  41  TCTs  in  the  third  deed  of  sale  were not delivered to  receiver  then)  had ceased to be the rehabilitation receiver at the time 
San  Miguel  Properties  due  to  the  replacement  of  the  rehabilitation  receiver.  of  the  transactions  and  was  replaced  by  FBO  Network  Management 
San  Miguel  Properties  filed  a  criminal  complaint  against  the  directors  and  on  May  17,  1989.  BF  Homes  refused  to  deliver  despite  demands 
officers  of  BF  Homes  for  violation  of  P.D.  No.  957  and  filed  for  specific  from San Miguel Properties. 
performance  under  the  HLURB,  to  compel  BF  Homes  to  release  the  20  TCTs.  4. San  Miguel  Properties  filed  a  complaint-affidavit  in  the  Office  of  the 
When  raised  to  the  DOJ, it dismissed the criminal complaint which San Miguel  City  Prosecutor  of  Las  Piñas City (OSP Las Piñas) charging directors 
Properties  then questioned. BF Homes contended that the administrative case  and  officers  of  BF  Homes  with  non-delivery  of  titles  in  violation  of 
in  the  HLURB  posed  a  prejudicial  question  that  must  first  be  determined  Section  25,  in  relation  to  Section  39  of  ​P.D.  No.  957  (​REGULATING 
before  the  criminal  case  could  be  resolved. The SC held that the case raises a  THE  SALE  OF  SUBDIVISION  LOTS  AND  CONDOMINIUMS, 
prejudicial  question  in  which  the  administrative  case  in  the  HLURB  must  be  PROVIDING  PENALTIES  FOR  VIOLATIONS  THEREOF)​.  San  Miguel 
decided first before proceeding with the criminal case under P.D. No. 957.  Properties  also  sued  BF  Homes  for  specific  performance  in  the 
  Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). 
Doctrine:  ​A  ​prejudicial question ​is that which arises in a case the resolution of  5. BF Homes’ contentions: 
which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in the criminal case, and the  a. San  MIguel  Properties’  claim  was  not  legally  demandable 
cognizance  of  which  pertains  to  another  tribunal.  It  is  determinative  of  the  because Atty. Orendain did not have authority to sell 
criminal  case,  but  the  jurisdiction  to  try  and  resolve  it  is  lodged  in  another  b. Deeds  of  sale  were  irregular  for  being  undated  and 
court or tribunal.   unnotarized 
c. Claim  should  have  been  brought  to  SEC  because  BF Homes 
The  essential  requisites  of  a  prejudicial  question  are  provided  for  under  was under receivership 
Section  7,  Rule  111  of  the  Rules  of  Court​,  ​to  wit​:  (a)  the  previously  instituted  d. In receivership cases, essential to suspend all claims against 
civil  action  involves  an  issue  similar  or  intimately  related  to  the  issue  in  the  a distressed corporation 
subsequent  criminal  action,  and  (b)  the  resolution  of  such  issue  determines  e. Lots  involved  were  under  ​custodia  legis,  ​stripping  the  OCP 
whether or not the criminal action may proceed.  Las Pi​ñas jurisdiction 
 6. San  Miguel  Properties  filed  a  motion  to  suspend  proceedings  in  the 
OCP  because  of  the  pendency of the receivership in the case. But BF  The  essential  requisites  of  a  prejudicial  question  are  provided  for  under 
Homes  opposed  the  motion  to  suspend.  Then,  the  SEC  terminated  Section  7,  Rule  111  of  the  Rules  of Court​, ​to wit​: (a) the previously instituted 
the  receivership  case.  The  OCP  also  dismissed  the  criminal  case  of  civil  action  involves  an  issue  similar  or  intimately  related  to  the  issue  in  the 
San  Miguel  Properties  on  the  ground  that  no action could be filed by  subsequent  criminal  action,  and  (b)  the  resolution  of  such  issue  determines 
or  against  a  receiver  without  leave  from  the  SEC  that  had appointed  whether or not the criminal action may proceed. 
him. 
7. OCP’s  ruling:  (1)  the  implementation  of  the  provisions  of  P.D.  No.  In  this  case,  the  action  for  specific  performance  in  the  HLURB  raises  a 
957  exclusively pertained to jurisdiction of HLURB; (2) there existed a  prejudicial  question  that  sufficed  to  suspend  the  proceedings  determining 
prejudicial  question  necessitating  the  suspension  of  the  criminal  the  charge  for  the  criminal  violation  of  Sec.  25  of  P.D.  No.  957  because  the 
action  until  after  the  issue  on  the  liability  of  BF  Homes  was  first  action  for  specific  performance  was an action civil in nature but could not be 
determined  by  SEC  or  HLURB;  (3)  no  prior  resort  to  administrative  instituted  elsewhere  except  in  the  HLURB  whose  jurisdiction  over  the  action 
jurisdiction  had  been  made;  and  (4)  no  probable  cause  to  indict  was exclusive and original.  
respondents for not being actual signatories to the deeds of sale. 
8. OCP  denied  the  MR  filed  by  San  Miguel  Properties  and  held  that  The  determination  of  whether  the  proceedings  ought  to  be  suspended 
directors  and  officers  of  BF  Homes  CANNOT  be  held  liable  for  because  of  a  prejudicial  question  rested  on  whether  the  facts  and  issues 
non-delivery  of  the  TCTs;  and  that  the  criminal  liability  would  only  raised  in  the  pleadings  in the specific performance case were so related with 
attach  after  BF  Homes  did  not  comply  with  a directive of the HLURB  the  issues  raised  in  the  criminal complaint for violation of P.D. No. 957, such 
directing it to deliver the titles.  that  the  resolution  of  the  issues  in  the  former  would  be determinative of the 
9. San  Miguel  Properties  appealed  the  resolutions  of  the  OCP  to  the  question of guilt in the criminal case.  
DOJ,  but  was  later  denied.  The  DOJ  held  that  San  Miguel  Properties 
An  action  for  specific  performance  stems  from  a  breach  of  contract  and  is 
cannot  invoke  the  penal  provisions  of  P.D.  No.  957  until  such  time 
the  remedy  to  demand  the  exact  performance  of  a  contract  in  the  specific 
that  the  HLURB  shall  have  ruled  and  decided  on  the  validity  of  the 
form  in  which  it  was  made,  or  according  to  precise  terms  agreed  upon  by  a 
transactions involving the said lots. 
party  bound to fulfill it. On the other hand, P.D. No. 957 is a law that regulates 
10. San  Miguel  Properties  appealed  to  the  CA,  but  such  appeal  and  the 
the  sale  of  subdivision  lots  and  condominiums  and  authorizes  the 
subsequent MR were both dismissed. 
suspension  and  revocation  and  license  of  real  estate  subdivision  owners, 
ISSUES: Whether the HLURB administrative case brought to compel delivery  developers,  and  etc,  and  prescribes  administrative  fines  and  other  penalties 
of  the  TCTs  could  be  a  reason  to  suspend  the  proceedings  on  the  criminal  in case of violation or non-compliance. 
complaint  for  the  violation  of  Sec.  25  of  P.D.  No.  957  on  the  ground  of  a   
prejudicial question — YES  In  the  case  at  bar,  the  action  for  specific  performance  in  the  HLURB  would 
determine  whether  or  not  San  Miguel  Properties  was  entitled  to demand the 
RATIO:  delivery  of  the  remaining  20  TCTs,  while  the  criminal  action  would  decide 
whether  or  not  BF  Homes’  directors  and  officers  were  criminally  liable  for 
Action  for  specific  performance,  even  if  pending  in  the  HLURB,  an  withholding the 20 TCTs. 
administrative  agency,  raises  a  prejudicial question. A ​prejudicial question ​is   
that  which  arises  in  a  case  the  resolution  of  which is a logical antecedent of  The case involves a prejudicial question and the petition is ​DENIED. 
the  issue  involved  in  the  criminal case, and the cognizance of which pertains 
to  another  tribunal.  It  is  determinative  of  the  criminal  case,  but  the 
jurisdiction to try and resolve it is lodged in another court or tribunal.  
 PEOPLE v ARAMBULO
June 17, 2015 | Perez, J | Prejudicial Question | Wayne Novera
Petitioner: People of the PH
Respondent: Victoria and Miguel Arambulo
Recit-Ready:
Victoria is one the heirs of Pedro Reyes. Anaped Estate, Inc. was incorporated
as part of the estate planning of the estate of Pedro Reyes. Buban, as VP, filed
a complaint for estafa against petitioner Victoria before Office of the City
Prosecutor for failing to remit the rentals collected in Anaped.
However, Respondents filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings on the
ground of a prejudicial question in view of the pendency of two intra-
corporate cases pending before the RTC of Quezon City and Makati City.
1st SEC case was filed by Oscar, Victoria’s brother, for accounting of assets,
among others.
2nd SEC case(IMPT): filed by Victoria questioning the authority of Buban.
RTC granted the motion for suspension (only the 2nd SEC case). It is a
prejudicial question as the non-remittance of VIctoria would be justified.
Appealed in the CA: Respondent appealed GADALEJ for denying them the
opportunity to file their comment(not related to prejudicial question) –
GRANTED. However, with regard to the decision in procedure, CA pointed out
that one of the elements of esata with abuse of confidence is a VALID
demand. If it be proven that Buban, has no authority, the demand would be
futile.
ISSUE: W/N the cases in SEC are prejudicial? YES – as to the second SEC
CASE
Doctrine:
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.
As applied in the case:
• Elements of demand and misappropriation bear relevance to the validity
or invalidity of the authority of Anaped directors and officers.
o If the supposed authority of the person making the demand is
found to be defective, it is as if no demand was ever made,
hence the prosecution for estafa cannot prosper.
• It is true that the accused may be convicted of the felony under Article
315, paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code if the prosecution
proves misappropriation or conversion by the accused of the money or
property subject of the Information
• Demand is not necessary where there is evidence of misappropriation
or conversion in estafa.
o The phrase, "to misappropriate to one's own use" has been said
to include "not only conversion to one's personal advantage,
but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another
without right."
o In this case, the resolution of the issue of misappropriation by
respondents depends upon the result of SEC
o If it is ruled in the SEC case that the present Anaped directors
and officers were not validly elected, then respondent Victoria
may have every right to refuse remittance of rental to Buban.
Hence, the essential element of misappropriation in estafa may
be absent in this case.
FACTS:
• Victoria R. Arambulo (Victoria), Emerenciana R. Gungab, Reynaldo
Reyes (Reynaldo), Domingo Reyes (Domingo), Rodrigo Reyes and
 Oscar Reyes (Oscar) are the heirs of Spouses Pedro C. Reyes and
Anastacia Reyes.
o Anaped Estate, Inc. (Anaped) was incorporated as part of the
estate planning or as conduit to hold the properties of the
estate of Pedro Reyes for and in behalf of his heirs.
• Jose Buban (Buban), as Vice-President and General Manager of
Anaped Estate, Inc. (Anaped), filed a complaint for estafa against
Victoria and her husband Miguel Arambulo, Jr. (Miguel) before the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Caloocan City.
• He alleged that Victoria failed to remit the rentals collected from the
time the ownership of the commercial apartments was transferred to
Anaped.
• On 24 April 2001, Assistant City Prosecutor Alvin A. Almora
recommended the filing of an Information against respondents.
o Respondents were charged with estafa
• Respondents filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings on the
ground of a prejudicial question in view of the pendency of two
intra-corporate cases pending before the RTC of Quezon City and
Makati City.
o SEC Case No. 05-97-5659 is a petition fied by Victoria's
brother Oscar for accounting of all corporate funds and assets
of Anaped, annulment of sale, injunction, receivership and
damages.
o SEC Case No. 03-99-6259 is a petition filed by Victoria and
her brothers Reynaldo and Domingo questioning the authority
of their elder sibling Rodrigo Reyes and Emerenciana R.
Gungab, as well as the Anaped Board of Directors and
officers, including private complainant Buban to act for and in
behalf of the corporation
• The trial court granted the motion for suspension of the proceedings.
o The trial court reasoned that the issue in the SEC cases, i.e.,
who between the groups has the right to act for and in behalf
of the corporation, has a direct link to the issue of the
culpability of the accused for estafa
o Respondents “they cannot be held liable for misappropriation
for they possess the authority to collect rentals and hold the
same on behalf of the firm. They would then be justified in not
remitting the collections to the group of Jose Buban who
would be then deemed as mere usurpers of authority.
• Respondents filed an Omnibus Motion praying that they be allowed to
file their Comment/Opposition to the motion for reconsideration and
that the pre-trial be held in abeyance.
o Respondents claimed that the Order of the trial court to file
comment/opposition was served on respondents themselves
and not on their counsel.
• The trial court denied respondents' Omnibus Motion.
o The trial court stressed that even if the order was served upon
respondents and not upon their counsel, records show that a
copy of the motion for reconsideration was served by
registered mail upon counsel. Thus, the trial court stated that
respondents' counsel was well aware of the existence of the
motion for reconsideration, thus he could have taken the
initiative to file his comment thereto without waiting for any
directive from the court.
• Portioners went to the CA because trial court committed GADALEJ –
Reversed and Set Aside
• CA: On prejudicial question
o Clearly, it involves facts that are intimately related to those
upon which the criminal case is based.
o The resolution of the issues raised in this intra-corporate
dispute will ultimately determine the guilt or innocence of
[respondents] in the crime of estafa initiated by Jose Buban.
o It must be remembered that one of the elements of the crime
of estafa with abuse of confience under paragraph 1 (b) of
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code is a demand made by
the offended party to the offender. A valid demand must
therefore be made by an offended party to the offender
• The appellate court concluded that if the supposed authority of Buban
is found to be defective, it is as if no demand was ever made, hence
the prosecution for estafa cannot prosper.
o MR. Denied afterwards
ISSUE: W/N the cases in SEC are prejudicial? YES – as to the second SEC
CASE (regarding demand and authority of Bubon, not the first one which is
about accounting of assets)
RATIO:
• 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 is a question 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, and for it to suspend the criminal action, it must appear not
only that said 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 issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or
innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.
• Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure
o a Elements of prejudicial question. — The elements of a
prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil
action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the
issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the
resolution of such issue determines whether or not the
criminal action may proceed.
• Aptly put, requisites are:
o (1) the civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon
which the criminal prosecution would be based;
o (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
o (3) jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another
tribunal.
• As correctly stated by the CA, the first SEC case
o Does not present a prejudicial question to the criminal case
for estafa. It is an action for accounting of all corporate funds
and assets of Anaped, annulment of sale, injunction,
receivership and damages.
o Even if said case will be decided against respondents, they
will not be adjudged free from criminal liability. It also does not
automatically follow that an accounting of corporate funds and
properties and annulment of fictitious sale of corporate assets
would result in the conviction of respondents in the estafa
case.
• Anent the second SEC case:
o There is prejudicial question
• Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of the RPC, the elements of estafa with
abuse of confidence are as follows:
o (1) that the money, goods or other personal property is
received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty
to make delivery of, or to return, the same;
o (2) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such
money or property by the offender, or denial on his part of
such receipt;
o (3) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the
prejudice of another; and
o (4) that there is demand by the offended party to the offender.
• Elements of demand and misappropriation bear relevance to the
validity or invalidity of the authority of Anaped directors and officers.
o If the supposed authority of the person making the demand is
found to be defective, it is as if no demand was ever made,
hence the prosecution for estafa cannot prosper.
• It is true that the accused may be convicted of the felony under Article
315, paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code if the prosecution
proves misappropriation or conversion by the accused of the money
or property subject of the Information
• Demand is not necessary where there is evidence of misappropriation
or conversion in estafa.
o The phrase, "to misappropriate to one's own use" has been
said to include "not only conversion to one's personal
advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of the property
of another without right."
o In this case, the resolution of the issue of misappropriation by
respondents depends upon the result of SEC
o If it is ruled in the SEC case that the present Anaped directors
and officers were not validly elected, then respondent Victoria
may have every right to refuse remittance of rental to Buban.
Hence, the essential element of misappropriation in estafa
may be absent in this case.
• Should respondents herein prevail in SEC Case, then Buban, who
does not own either by himself or in behalf of Anaped which is the
owner, the property heretofore managed by Victoria, cannot demand
remittance of the rentals on the property and Victoria does not have
the obligation to turn over the rentals to Buban.