Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Prejudicial Question PDF

    Uploaded by

    Jan Ceasar Climaco
    9 views24 pages

    Original Title

    prejudicial question.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    9 views24 pages

    Prejudicial Question PDF

    Uploaded by

    Jan Ceasar Climaco

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 24
    The Prejudice of the Prejudicial Question: Examining and Re-Examining the Doctrine of the Prejudicial Question Vera M, de Gusman* 1 trnopucron. sor Il. Tae DoctNé OF Tie PaRUDCIAL QUESTION GENERAL IDEA AND HISTORY a IM THROUGH THE YEARS THE RULES OF COURT AND THE PREUDICIAL QUESTION 6s IV, CASESURVEY 1930-2008). 68 ‘A. Giri hina Cas Combination Chit Ci Cass Combination ©. min Criminal Cases Combination D. Got Adminratice Cases Contnaton Chinn dministie Css Combination Faber Cues . Beto Cases Vo ARARYSS 8 1. Apply to Othe Tipe of Cas BS Seu in eRe C. Frame, D. Paper VI. Conctvson . oat VILRECOMMENDATION. 685 6 JD, Aenco de Manila Univeny School of Law, with hovom 03 AB, ‘Avenes de Manda University She ws 3 Member ofthe Board of Editors (2004- 2007) and Exective Comite (2008-27), Ateneo Law Jounal She was the Lead ‘Eos for Vel. o, ue no. and Vol. laste no. 3. The author's previous week ube in the Jounal include: A Pley vith Wort: B.P. Bl. 88 and The Calbated DreEnpive Rape Poiy, s1 ATENEO LJ. 185 (2026) She also co-authored Mdiatin: A Favonle Resin 1 Farly Dipue Setlement, $1 ATENEO LJ. 762 (2006 and The Lge Cont of Tenor ander Ineratonal Law and lis Applian to Philippine Menipel Lav, st ATENEO L]. 823 (2007) This stile is an abridged verion ofthe authors ns Doctor Thais on le with the Ateneo de Mania Profesional Schoo Library. Gite 52 RTENEO LJ. 60 (2007. 2007) WRIT OF POSSESSION or L INTRODUCTION ‘The 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure! defines 2 prejudicial question by enumerating its elements: (1) that there is an isue (in 2 previously instisuted civil action) similar or intimately related to the issue la a subsequent criminal action); and (2) the resolution of the issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed? This, remains fuithfal to the definition sted in the Civil Code of the Philippines, which was drafted approximately so years before the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Civil Code states chat a prejudicial question must be decided byfre any criminal proscaution may be ‘nsiuted or may proceed and shall be governed by the rules which the Supreme Coure sll promulgate? Jurisprudence, on the other hand, has been using the doctrine as ealy as 126 February 1920, in the case of Berar». Concepcion and defines it as that hich i “[ujnderstood in lw to be that which must precede the ciminal ation, that which requies a decision before a fnal judgment is rendered in the ‘principal action, with which said question i closely connected,"s It appears from the definition provided in the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure that there is a very technical description to the doctrine — there has to be a civil case tat is fled previous tothe criminal case. Nevertheless, while the Rules are defined this way, there te various instances in jurisprudence where the doctrine has been wed in situations not involving civil-criminal cases, This can also be gleaned from the definition in Beran, which only sates that there isa question posed before he ‘riminal case may be decided. 1 docs not sate that this question should only ‘be posed in a civil case, Instead, it only requires that che question mus fist bbe answered in another cae before the -iminal case may be decided. The previous question does not neeserly come a cl case. This implication can 1.2000 REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE a. rule 113,97 . 4. Am Act to Ordhin and Insitute the Civl Code of the Philippines [NEW Cwvit (CovE], Republic Act No. 386 (1950). rice 3 provides: Prejudicial questions, which act be die Ble ny cna pron maybe ited or may pred ball be governed by the rules of coure ‘which the Supreme Cove shall promulgate and which sal ot be in Condict with the provisions ofthis Code (emphasis supple}. 4 Besbariv. Concepcion, 40 Phil 837 (120) 5.14, 38839 (emphasis soplid 602 ATENEO LAW JOURNAL {vor. $2:600 albo be found in the Civil Code, which states that such prejudicial question 5s question which must be decided before acximinl case may proved Tei thas quite obvious that che Ralls have a very stingent definition, and yet, the swict wordings have only been wsed in ene case — Tones Gardin? On the other hand, we have jussprudence, comprised of some 2350 to 260 cases, which touch upon and use the doctrine. It is worth noting that these cates do not concem themselves with civil nd eximinal cases alone. They also involve other combinations of cases, such as cvil-civi, ‘criminal-ciminal, civil-administrative, criminal-adminisrative, labor, and election cases. The doctrine hat been wed in our jurisdiction since the x20, It was, only dating the 19608, however, in the 1964 Rules of Court, when such doctrine was codified. While it has aleady been codiied, the codified verion of the doctrine of the ptejudicil question fils to provide an exhaustive guideline and framework under which the same may be used ‘Alo, 38 there are no clear-cut guidelines under which the Supreme Court applies the doctrine, the present status of the doctrine of the prejudicial ‘question simply breeds and breathes in confasion. On one hand, we have the very strict guideline in the Rules of Court and, on the other, the very Alexble application of the doctine in cases decided by the Supreme Court hhow can thee then be reconciled? ‘Thus, the aim ofthis aril is to bring together all the cates wherein the Court! used the doctrine or where the parties raved the doctine as a defense, in order to deduce from them a famework or guideline, if such 4 famework exists, under which the doctine of the prejudicial question ‘opertes, bn addition, the tide ofthis aril refers to the examination and re ‘examination ofthe doctrine ofthe prejutical question a: i seeks ro examine the doctrine through jurisprudence, and to re-examine the same, in onder to be able to deduce a famework by which itis to be applied. As the Rules of Court provide for very strict yet aon-exhaustive ‘guidelines in applying the doctrine and at jurisprudence provide for very ‘rable examples, how then do we apply the doctrine? When then, do we apply the doctrine? New Oval Cope, an. 36 17. Toutes. Guchtorena, 394 SCRA 434 (203) AL Note that in the succeeding discussions, “cou while “Cour” shall refer tothe Supreme Cour shall fer to lowe cours 2007) WRIT OF POSSESSION 603 ‘The questdns thea that sek to be answered ae as fellows: 1 As there aze other possible combinations of cases that may use the doctrine, other than civi-criminal, such as civi-sii, criminalcriminal, civiladministative, criminal-adminstative, abor, and election cases, can the doctrine be used succesilly in these instances? 2, In dhe civil-criminal combination, does the civil case sticly have to be Bled before the criminal case to warrant the suspension ofthe later? This isin consonance with the wordings ofthe 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.” Do we follow the wording strictly or ate there exceptions? 3 Ultimately, is there 2 famework that can be deduced from Jurisprudence as to the use of the doctrine ofthe prejudicial question? 44. What purpose does the doctrine serve in this jurisicion? What ‘sential and salient features docs it have that makes it indispensable? Or iit does not have any such essential and salient features, can it ukimately be ddpensed with in our jurisdiction? THE DocTIUNE OF THE PREJUDICIAL QUESTION: GENERAL IDEA AND HisToRY Jispridence guides us as to the concept and history of the prejudicial (weston, Bertariv. Concepcion was decided in 26 February 1920. This was the fist decided case in our jusisiction to have used the doctrine ofthe prejudicial (question. This cate defined a prejudicial question as a concept understood in law to be “that which mut precede the cninal ation that which requires a decison before 2 final judgment is rendered in the principal action with which ssid question is dosely connected.”!° Despite this, Beba provides caution that "Not all proious questions ave pri although all prejudiiah {uestons are ncsaily previous.” It ha alto been defined asthe question arising from a case the resolution of which is logical antecedent to the issue involved in sid case and te cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. It is ako a question based 9, 2000 REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, rule 111,57, 1a. Berbasi v. Coneepcion, 40 Phil 837, 839 (1920) (emphasis supplied) sao, Brit-Sy v. Mite Taxicab & Garage, Ine, 103 Pil 48 (1957). 18, Besa, go Pai at 839 (emphasis supplied) 12, People v. Aragon, 94 Phil. 357 (1954) ‘we [ATENEO LAW JOURNAL {vor s2:600 om a fact distinct and separate from the erime but 10 intimately connected ‘with that it determines the guilt or innocence ofthe accused.” Berbr explained that the doctrine was caved over to our juidition fom Spain, through the Spanish Law of Procedure of 182, when the need for the application of said doctrine arose. The Cour stated that: ‘The compilation ofthe laws of criminal procedure of Spain as amended in 180 did noc have any provision conccming questions requiring judicial econ before the insition of erminal prosecution. Ine, in oreo See sid uestions in ease they ar raed fre the curs of thse Led, it wl! be mec lok forthe Law of Cia! Prac of 18, hich has pes the former pred ond ite ony Lwin fe in Spin in 1884 sth the Pl Code ws made appa 0 tse land. Said lw of 2883 it clothed, therefore, of the chaacer of supplementary Iw” containing repectuble doctrine, inasmuch 5 there is no law inthis eountay on sid proud guerions The case of Mered v. Hon. Diez, o al5 farther explained that the requizement of an isue apnizale by anther curtis necesiry to the existence ofa prejudicial question, 25 Spanish jurisprudence, from which the docti of the prejudicial question was derived, requires such. This is because Spanish cours are divided according to thei jurisdictions, some being exclusively of civil jurisdiction, others of criminal jurisdiction "This is not the case, however, wth Philippine cours. Philippine courts have both civil ‘nd criminal jurisdiction, Thue, ax applied to Philippine cours, when two ‘Gues are pending before the ‘same court, the court may be exercising 15: Bence v Concepcion, + SCRA 178 96. 14, ote, oF a 84 (empha supplied, 26 Merced v. Hon. Die, ea, 109 Pil 135 (0) 16. x60, Span juispeence, fom which he principle of prj quetion hasbeen ake, reais tht the een element determinative of te tial acon muse cogs by nother cour Tis requement fs dierent cou it demanded mn Spunkh jutpradence beonse Sri cours at divided scoring to the jrdcions, ome coms ‘ing exhaiey of jurdion, ete fel arson. the Pilipines whe oe outs a vee wth both ie ad cial ntsc, the dpe of pil uso ito appl een ee ‘nt on wut bie whith Be cl ona he inl aon te aged Bt cathe cor when ees i urine the S108 fr th eal of mariage i ied a oti od Geet om ie when tying the cna ation fr bigamy empbas spp} 2007) WRIT OF POSSESSION fos ferent juris over thee cats, for intance, orion over 3 cv ‘ate for annulment of mariage on the one hand and ciminaljursicon ‘ver a complaint for bigamy on the other Hence, the doctine is serlcable “This dedi Iter on evaved to state the elements consis of 2 rejicil question: () the cil actin invaes an ue sito intimately fated tothe ioe rated inthe ciminalachon, and) the resolton of toch ie determines whee: or not the criminal action may proceed. This mumertion is now coded and modified in the 2000 Revied Res of iin rocedie, which provider hat (9 the previwly snus clacton involves anime sith ot tity rete Yo the nue ated inthe sequent im ond @) the tolaion of uch ine determines whether or mi fe etal 2etion may paced This is as mach as can be found inthe history of the prj ueton.Iei82 Spnih doctne brought to our temitry by reson of our ring colon of Span, fe wa ininoated in the Spanish Res of Court of 1582 In adton, Ber’ was the fnt documented casero have wed the doctne in dcitng the ious ofthe case. ‘The doctrine has been used in this jurisdiction s0 as to avoid conflicting court decisions, to avoid uanecessaty tigation, and to addres different rights that are at stake in different proceedings. For instance, in civ eases, what is involved is money or property, whereas in criminal cases, itis ie, Hberty, as well as money or property.® Hence, when a prejudicial question exists in a 17. Se, Mered, 109 Phil, 160-6. The dstncion between prejudicial question in ‘Spanish uriprudence and Philippine juepdence that Spanish jurisprudence fom which the principle of prejodical quetion hss heen ken, requires that the exentsl clement deceminaive ofthe cminal action must be wognizable by another cour. Tis requirerent fof a diferent cour it demanded in Spanish juriprdence becnse Spinih cour are divided scconding to ther jurditon, some cours being exclasvely of evil jurisdiction, other of criminal jection Ia the Philippines, where courts are in both cil and criminal jrstiction, the principle of prejudicial questcn i o be applied even ‘there sony one court before whic dhe civ action andthe cin! action ae tobe ligated 18, 2000 REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, rule 11,57 19, Se Antonio Bautisa, Predure and Preemption i Adjuaon: The Dacine of Pri Questions, 78 Pa. LJ. x (203) [hetenafier Bats}. 20, See gene, 606 ATENEO IAW JOURNAL fvor. 52:60 civ case, iis important to resolve such isue, a it may be determinative of the guile of the sccated in the criminal cae and may result in avoiding the subjection of the accaed toa restraint on his fe and berty, a punishment more dificul and grave, IL THROUGH THE YEARS — THE RULES OF COURT AND THE PREJUDICAL QUESTION ‘The rules on criminal procedure were originally governed by: 1, ‘The Spanish Law of Criminal Procedure (Ley de Exjuciamento Criminal, Beneral Orders No. 58, dated 23 April 1900, 3. Amendatory Acts pased by the Philippine Commission (Act No. 194). 4. Philippine Bill of 1902, Jones Law of 1916, Tydings- McDuffie Law and the Constitution of the Philipines * ‘These were all incorporated in the 1940 Rules of Court. Thereafer, the [les were amended in 1964, 1985, 1988, and 2000 Rehitive tothe doctrine ofthe orejudicial question, the Rules of Court hhav= been amended in 1964, 1388, ad 2000: ‘The 1964 Rules provide: ‘A petiion for the suspension of the criminal action bused upon the pendency fa prejudicial question in acl ease may only be presented by ay party during the tral ofthe exninal axon. *> ‘The 1985 and 1988 Ralls state, reséctively ‘A petition for suspension ofthe ctmial acon based upon the pendency ‘of prejudicial queton in 2 civ ation may be fed in the ofe ofthe fsa or the cour condacting the preliminary invessgtion. When the criminal ation at been ed n csr for ia, he petition to super shall, De Bled im the same criminal acon at any time before the prorecwtion 31. OSCAR M. HERRERA, TREATISE ON HISTORICAL DEVAIOPMENTS AND [HIGHGHTS OF AMENDMENTS O* RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1-2 (oot) Percinafer HERRERA) 22 19s4 Ruurs oF Caumeva PROCEDURE, rule 112, § 5 (tupentded 1985) 2}. 1985 RULES OP CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, rule 11,56 upended ro). oe 2007] WRIT OF POSSESSION 607 ‘The two (2) esentil elements of 2 preadical question ae: () the evil action involves an isue sina oF intima) related to che isu raed in ‘he ciminal action; and () the esouion af uch sue determines whether ‘or not the criminal action may proceed “The 2000 Rules now provide [A peston for suspension of the criminal acon based upon the pendency ofS prejudicial question in civ action may be fed in the office of che Drovecuor or the court conducing the preliminary investigation. When the criminal action har been Sled in cour for el the petson to suspend Shall be led inthe same erimial action any time before the prosecuion ‘The element of prejudicial question ae) she previouty insted civil ction invalves an iss silt or intimately related to the isue raised in ‘he subsequent criminal acon, and (@) the reslution of such iswe determines whether or not the criminal aaion may proceed ** AA significant revision in the 1964 Rules by the 1988 and 2000 Rules is ‘thatthe petition for suspension may be filed with the fcal, even when the ‘ase is sill in the preliminary investigiton stage or in court, before the prosecution rest its eae. In the 1964 Rules, the petition for suspension may only be filed in court during the rial of the criminal cate Section 7 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is ‘Amendment 8 in the revision of the Rule in 2000, There was a clamor to delineate the we ofthe doctrine and the doctrine itself ait was much prone to abure. Solicitor General Galver sought a clearer definition of a prejudicial question. He said that the determination of is existence should be based on Whether the ie on the civil ete can be decided by the ciminal court” Justice Taquero suggested the remoral of the power of the Bical to detcrmine the existence of the prejudicial question that would suspend the criminal proceedings. He noted that this ba been abuted in the pas by the prosecutors. The courts should only be the one to determine the existence of 4 prejudicial question. justice Feria said that this proporal will not only ‘4 1988 RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ne 113, § 5 (oupeneded 3000) 25. 2000 REVISED RULES OF CAIMINAL PROCEDURE, rule 11, §6 36. 14.§>, 27. Reviied Ruler of Cour of the Philippines, Minutes ofthe Meeting of the (Commie on the Revision ofthe Rules of Cour (May 27, 199) fhereinaer Minutes ofthe Meeting 608 ATENEO LAW JOURNAL [wot. 52:600 reverse Francisco but would abo aféct the instution ofa cximinal ese with ‘he isl provide in rule 1108 Hence, the present changes. These changes now limited 2 prejudicial question o 2 “prvowly insisted cl action." Tie means that before the provision on the prejudicial question comes into play, the civil action must have akeady been previously insitated or fled prior to the fling of the criminal case. Te was opined that the strt wording tas been suggested and incorporated into the Rules to avoid perceived abuse by liigants who may file 2 cae only to prevent the criminal case ftom proceeding." This is suppoited by the statement made by Solicitor General Galver during the meeting ofthe Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court, in which cease Juice Feria mide the suggetion of adding the words “previously instiated” before “civil action” and “subsequent” before “criminal action.” Solicitor General Galvez explicited that his proposal of delineating the nature of 4 prejudicial question wil discourage the willful fling by the accused ofa civil case in order to delay or suspend the criminal case Justice Feria noted thatthe criterion of the Solicitor General is too restrictive. He opined tat the prior fling ofthe cil ease should be taken 28 good faith on the par ofthe accused, AS 2 safeguard against abuses, he then suggested to amend section s by adding “PREVIOUSLY INSTITUTED” before “civil action” and “SUBSEQUENT” befere “criminal action.” This modification, Justice Feria declared, would alto achieve the purpose of the Solicitor Genera The Conmitee approved Justice Fens’s suggestion, The amendments were ordered inserted ito the Approved Draf.* IV. CASE Suny (1920-2006) This part will concern itself with cxes ffom 1920-2006, from 26 February 1520 up to 17 March 2006 to be exact, which made wse of nd discussed the doctrine ofthe prejudicial question, ‘The cass shall be grouped inte smaller subdivisions depending on the combinations ofthe types of cases that are involved. These subdivisions or 28 29. Se HERRERA, supe noe 21,350 empha supplied. 30. Se, FORTUNATO GUPIT, SIGNIFICANT REVISIONS IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 27 00) ji, Iaapat 1, Mints ofthe Meeting, supa note 26 (Oct. 25 1939). 2007} WRIT OF POSSESSION 609 ‘combinations ate: (2) civi-riminal, which shall be subdivided farther as to ‘which cate precedes the other, hence (1) cv-eriminal and (2) criminal-civil, and 2 special subdivision dealing with bigamy cassis provided under (3); (©) civil; (€) criminal-criminal; (@) cial-administative; (€) criminal- sddminisrative;(fnbor cases, and (@) election cases, A. Ciil- Criminal Cases Combination “This subdivision is further subdivided into civil-ximinal and criminal-civil combination, if only to test the strict wordings ofthe 2000 Revised Rules of CCeiminal Procedure.» The later states th the civil ase must precede the criminal ase before the later may be suspended. Where the civil case is ied belatedly, however, are there instances dat warrant the suspension of the criminal case, serving as an exception tothe strict wordings ofthe Roles? 1. Civil-Criminal Cases Combination Under this subsection, the civil case is Sled previous to the criminal case ‘The eatles cate under this category isthe eatliese case that delved into the doctrine of the piejudicial question — Bart v. Conepin. ‘This involved a civil and criminal case. Bexbasi entered into an agreement with Chicote co establish 2 corporation. Chicote should have, soon afer, given the former haf ofthe cai Berbati thereafter instituted 2 civil case against Chicot for recovery of certain sum of money that the later owes him personally. Chicote refused to comply with this. Instead, he filed a case of exalt against Berbari for allegedly embezsling money that, pusark co theit agreement, should have been used as part ofthe capital of the business. Berbari defended himself in the «igla case alleging that he used ssid mouey in compensation for the amount Chicote owed him. Besar then requested te Court hein the cxminl cate wo mspend the criminal proceedings a che issue in the civil case constituted a pre} ‘question necessary for the determination of guilt inthe erminal ewe, ‘The Supreme Court believed othe:wite saying that the isive and ecision in the civil case wae not prejudical co the decision in the criminal cise, if at al, i was "the criminal cate which (wale prejudicial to the civil case" The Court stated, in addition, that it was not even a question which {in 2000 REviszD RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ele 191,57, 34. Besbariv. Concepcion, 4 Phi 837 (1920 45, Ha yo. on ATENEO LAW JOURNAL Ivor. 52:600 2. Criminal-Civil Cases Combination Under thi subection, the criminal ae i fled previous to the chi ce. The fin ease to dea with this combination isthe case of Ocampo and dela Cz v. Cangas which made an iereting pronouncement. This ese concerned a criminal case for violations ofthe Copyright Law, Thereafter, civil eae ws fled forthe annulment ofthe copyight, which was allegedly copied, on te guns of feud. Peoners prayed forthe suspension of the criminal action onthe grounds ofthe exitence ofa prejudicial question in the civ eae. The Court denied thei petion and stted tht, i 3 ali is the civ eve tha should be surpended and not the criminal case, a wl the copytights are cnclled, they presumed to have been duly granted and famed. his is quite different from the general pronouncement that the criminal are could be srpended duc to the existence ofthe civil ase; and ‘what more intriguing i that the Cour says that this the genera ule — the superion ofthe cv case Tore». Garena! i an important cate ait is the fst and only one to have incorpomted and ured in its deciion the 2000 amendment t0 the Rales of Criminal Procedure pettioner’ innocence inthe cial ene. That second mariage 8 fWnnced in gow faith is immaterial nthe cv acon. fis material nly inthe cil east show ek of criminal ten 1, Ocampo an del Crue ¥. Cocingan 6 Pil. 9 (959). Hd 34606 . “The ation fr ancelton of copyrights brought by the peitoner on the pound of fad, deze and mirepreseratin allegedly resorted 0 by, o€ imputed to, the tspondent Jose Cochngyan to secure the ‘uace of the copytighs is independent om the cininl roution for infingement of copyrights charged sai the ettoner ard does not couse an nota pj action which fut be decided Gat belo the wil of the defendants inthe eal Cares may be hla the determination ede quton ried athe Gi ston not neces rjc Unt cancel the copyrights fre prenmed to have been ly anted ad ined. As ager! il, « tinal a hd it Be deel ad he elo ing of any ee to bene on he god ha ee preg ution which ma it be dee th hang of eel ad et th inl wd ld be pened — the leer mt ake predeneovetheJomer (erphss sop. 43. Tons. Garhtorena, 394 SCRA 494 (2003) 2007} WRIT OF POSSESSION 613 “This case concemed a criminal cate for vioation of Republic Act No. sorol against Mayor Dionisio Torres of Noveleta, Cavite for taking advantage of his official Sunction and, through evident bad faith, causing the relocation of squatters in an area allegedly owned by Susana Realty, Inc. (SRI). Thereafter, the Republic, through the Solicitor Genera, fled civil case agtinet SRI for reversion of propersy.© ‘Through this, petitioners moved for a suspension of the criminal case 3s the civil case was constitutive ofa prejudicial question in the criminal case fled agiinst chem. The Court believed otherwise 25, in the 2000 amendment, the civil cave must have been filed ahead of the criminal case. "This is not applicable in this case asthe criminal case was filed befove the civil exe, “We Anti-Galt and Comupt Practices Act, Republic ACtNo, 3019 (196) 45. Tas, 394 SCRA 3 498. The allegation in the compact saxed: [Taking advaneage of thee oficial fonctions and through evident bad Gian ind grow inexcuable negligence, dd then and there willy, tnlawilly and flnioualy case the Gling up of a submerged portion fof lot owed by and registered in the name of Susana Realty Corp. ‘without di verijing the exitence of is owner and despite showing proof of iS ovmerhip. with the intention to reclaim it for the Iuniipalty’s housing program 10 the damage and prejudice of the regiered ovmers squatters now occupy the ae, “The amtecedent fic of id complaint were a flows On October 10, 1997, Mayor Diowiso Tomes of Noveleta, Cavite ‘aused the leveling and reclamation ofthe submerged portion of SRI's propery for the relocation of displaced sguauers from Tirona, Cavite Tho were living song. riverbonkt and exeros. Domingo Feranler proteted to the Mayor informing him that his employer [Susana Realty, In. oe SRI} owned the property being levelled and relied the fstnce ofthe Mayor. Ha, 6 Mat [he Republic fled 2 compsint saint SRI and the Regier of Deeds of Cavite for che revenion ofthe propery covered by Tranter Cerificate of Tide Nos. $344 and 5345 ited in fivor of SRI. The care was docketed at Civil Cae No. 7160. The Republic allege inter sla that said propery had been arceained by the Department of Environment sod Natural Resources (DENR) 24 part af the Manila Bay per Clasiicaton Map 2756 dted February 2%, 1972. Hence, it formed part ofthe inalienable mas of be public domain owned by the Sate ou [ATENEO LAW JOURNAL wor. 52:600 ader the amendment, prejudicial quettion is undertood inlaw a that ‘which mast precede the exninal action and which requires 2 deckion before Sn jdgmene can be rendered in the cial ation with which ‘sid queion is osely conneced, The clacton mat be tied prio he lnstiaton of the cil ain In his case, che Information wat Bed with the Sendgvbayn ahead ofthe comple in Civil Case No. 7160 fed by the Sie with the RIC in Civil Case No, 7160. Ths, no prjudiit _getion exis ‘The Cour held that, notwithstanding this point, the issue in the civil case was not determinative ofthe gui of the accused in the evil ease: ‘Bess fal judgment of te RTC in Civil Case No, 7360 declaring the property a foreshore lend and hence, ialensble, it mot determinative of the git or ince ofthe pettnas in the xml cite tbr eesing thet nk ad wnt ded wal anv by cou of competent jariion 1m ‘propia aon thoy the eof SRI cer he abject pap ae veld SL i ened to che pasesion af the properaes covered by mid tes. tent be illegaly deprived ofits possaton ofthe propery by petitioners inthe ‘guie of 2 reclimaton unt Gna jodgment is rendered. declaring the Property covered by sid ess foreshore and st 4. Bigamy/Concubinage Cases ‘This section wall concern itself with bigamy cases where the doctrine of prejudicial question i ised as a defense. ‘The fist ese involving sucka simation is Pepe v. Aragon A criminal case was fled against Abelo Aragon for having contracted a second mariage ‘with Eigenia C. Palomer in 1947, while his previous valid marsage with Marina Godinez was still spbising and had not been disolved. Thereafer, figenia C. Palomer Sled a civil cat for annulment of marriage in the sume court against Aragon, alleging tht che Iter, by means of force, threats, and intimidation, forced her to marry him. Aragon prayed that che criminal cave against him be provisionally dismissed on the ground that the civil ation poses a prejudicial question co the criminal cas. The Cour, however, denied his petition, stating that a decition on the annulment of the marriage will not devermine his gui inthe criminal case, a the civil case did mo allege nor uate ht he was the vc ofthe fone, that or intimidation. ‘The Court exphined, “This civil action does not decide that 47. Ha $09 (emphasis supple} 8. (emphasis supplied), 4. People. Aragon, 94 Phil. 357954). 2007] WRIT OF FOSSESSION ors efendant-appellant id not enter the mariege asia his will and consent... the Complaint doesnot alge tht he was the siti of foe and intimidation in the second ‘mariage; it does nt determine the existence of any of the elements of. bigamy." Hence, it was not his consent which was vitisted. Aragon cannot use his ‘own malfeasance to defend himself ina criminal ation against him. * So. Hn 60 (emp pled. The Coon rere “There ino question hat th alegon ofthe complint om ine the marage contacted by. lent pptine wh Eger. C Palomera ad ond Gecton 29, Ate 3613 othe own 3 “The Mage Law) ml owere no dle the cma {eon fr bigany fled pans hn. The ppsed we of ree aod inimiaon san the worn, Pome, cv wee, t+ tar or dete to si con Pome, wee she the on red th bigamy. could petape rate if fore or intnidiion at + deese Beau she may not be connered saving cl a volt ommied the ac ise wt faced tothe mage by stmidaion Burnt teeter pay. ha wed the feo intimin. The ater thay not as hi own alesace to dees the acon bed on ib ceil ac. Te falls that she pendency of she ci ton fr the mnalent of the marge ted Uy Ege C. Palomera material the clini acon fed spat dfnt-appelant. Thc aon doesnot dete that seinatppcine dd not ener he mage Spun swan coment bro he compat doc not lege hat 2 the can of force nd non the second marge does ot dean the een any of the ements of he barge Ebi A decion thereon so een the detrinason of thecal cape er thee no pedi goin u 1H. 2 359 (ing Ene Eel 28) Cuno rl ea ut stat con plas ey rene ted gd tg ed fest 7 eyo tontinis cents bt Trae tof en © Js wih meas tats pista qucion hs been defined to be dt {thich ate in» co therein of whith queton loge antecedent lie siue sneered i sal cae and the copance of which peas fo Stother tba), The Coy she The prejudicial quetion mus Le detente ofthe ese Befoe the ours dis ist dames, Jricton to ty sid quion mux be ode in another ina tht the second element Tn an aon fo Srgamy, fr rmpl he ceed is the fe mage al and vida the ght Sede sch vay veel i another ‘buna the ei acon for lity ms fist be deed before the 616 ATENEO LAW JOURNAL Ivor. s2:600 ‘The ease of Menedv. Dice while similar tothe case of Ang, dtfered in one point. In this ete, the Court allowed the suspension of the eiminal case of bigamy, due tp the extence of a previously insituted civil case. It smust be recalled tht in Aragon, it was Aragon’s second wife who alleged vitiaton of consent. In Mere, it was Merced himelf, the one against whom, the bigamy ease wa fed, who alleged vitiation of consent ‘The defendant in che bigamy case, Merced, alleging that force, threat, and intimidation were employed against him tO obtain his consent to his second mariage with Eizabeth Cea, fled this civil case for annulment of the mariage 5} The iste inthis casei precisely whether an action to annul the second marrage is a prejudicial question in a presecacion for bigamy. “The Court held in the afrmatve, “lt onder cha a person may be held guilty of the crime of bigamy, the second and subsequent mariage must have all the estentil elements of 2 valid marrage, were it not for the subsistence of the fst mariage.” And a one of the elements of a valid marviage is consent, which s ely and voluntary given, the absence of such warrants an ‘leg! or void mariage. Hence, if che fst marrage is void due to vtiated consent, chen the case fr bigamy wil not and eannot prosper. secon for bigamy @anproced hence, the validity ofthe ist mariage 52 pedudical question, 1h 359-0. |2: Meycedv. Die, 109 Pil 155 190) 53. Thi dierent fom Argon, a ic wag the second wile of Aragon who alleged that force, indmidtion, ad eueat was employed against her to be able to secune her conn. Thi itace ia Mads the very nstance which the Court speaks ofin Aragon that ha oe the cin ofthe threat that should seek and seceed inthe reque r he suspension ofthe criminal ete of bigamy, not the smaefctoc who seks refuge unde his malfeasance 4. Meted,rop Phil at ¥59 (1960), 85 14.360, ‘One of the enens laments ofa valid marriage is tha the consent thereto ofthe contacting pais mast be freely and voanealy given. ‘Withoot the cement of consent 2 mariage would be illegal 2nd void (Section 29, het 3613 otherwise known 2¢ The Mariage Law). But the question of mmlidy can no ordinarily be decided inthe cxizinl ction for bigamy but in civil acon fr annlent. Since the vay ofthe Seeand mariage, subject ofthe action for bigamy, cannot be determined inthe ximinal case and since poseeaion for bigay does not i ules the ements ofthe second marriage apes 1 ext, i neces tht a decion ia cv action tothe eet that the second, ‘mariage conti all he een of a mrage us Bet be ecured, 2007] WRIT OF POSSESSION a7 B, Civl-Ciil Cases Combination Mabale v, Apalisok concerned 4 civil cave in relation to an amicable settlement 4 t0 the ownerhip of 2 parcel of land. Mabale, however, was Iield in contempt in the civil cae a he refused to vacate the parcel of land afier signing the amicable setdement in favor of the respondents. Mable alleged that sai allegation of contempt was a prejudicial question in che civil Cate, The Court however, sated in clear terms that petitioner’ contention that the “contempt proceeding in the Civil Case No. 2711 should be suspended, [als mot cortec™” ae “the supposed contempt fwas not criminal in nature. Te fwals cil in nature becase it consisted] in the flare to do so something for che benefit ofa party." In Tamin v. Court of Appeals? the Court stited that, technically speaking, a prejudicial question shall not arise in actions which are both civil jn nature, such af in the case at bar; however, substantively speaking, the cadastral Case was prejudial co the eectment case As peculiar circumstances obtained ig the cate at bar, as the cadatal proceeding (civil) would ‘ukimately determine the rightful owners af the land and whether or not the case for ejecrmene (other civil case) should prosper, cetain measures had co be taken. , ‘We have, tector, inthe cae at bat, the ive of the validity ofthe second mariage which mast be deteemined before hand in the cv reson, before the eximinal acon can proce. We have station where she isue of he vality of the second marrage an be ‘etermined or most be deemnined in the civil action before the ‘minal acton for bigamy can be prosecuted, The question of the salidy of the second marge &, therefore, + prejudicial question, Decsme drerminaion of the validity of the second mariage is determinable inthe efi action and mus precede the criminal ction foe bigamy. 156. Mabalew. Apalick, 68 SCRA 244 (1979) sp. Hh. 8249 58 I. (Gung IIL MANUEL V, MORAN, COMMENTS ON Tue RULES OF COURT 543 (1970 ed) emphasis supple) 459, Tain v. Cour of Appel, 208 SCRA 863 (193) 60, Taya. Technically, + prejudicial quetsion shall not it in the insant case since the to ations ioe ze both cv in nature. However, we have to consider the Ec hat the cadasval proceedings wil ultimately sete the seal owner/s of the diputed parcel of land. In exe respondent Vicente Medins is ajudged the real owner ofthe parcel of ea oa ATENEO LAW JOURNAL {vo1. 52:600 Thus, jn this case, where 2 cadastral case was pending and a civil eae for jectment was pending guns the petitioner in the cadaital case, the Court den i nceay fr the petione in he eecment eae to pos a bond in cae the demolition of theie properties be declared illegal by the Court, pending determination ofthe ownership in the cadastral case ©. China Criminal Cases Combination The a of Hip. Cot of Ape di oe concer two oF mote ces ef dient menor of te sme naar; however the Cour e the cine, made nressng pronouncement earn the matey submitted in said criminal case. mee ‘The lower court held in abeyance he criminal case by virtue of several ‘motions filed by the accused in the criminal case of murder and said that ‘hese motions conse “prejudicial questions" 0 the prosecution of the case. The Cour sid that this was correct — that the issues stated in the ‘motions were indeed prejudicial to the continuation ot abeyance of the prosecution of the case. Nevertheless, the Court, asa aut, stated that the ‘use of the tem “prejudicial question” in the instant case was not used according to the definition provided for in the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, “but inthe sens thatthe resolution ofthe motions [was 2 lg antecedent ofthe ta on the merit ofthe exis." D. Cit Adminisaie Cases Combination compe v Burevernt involved an adminiative cse and a cil cx, were Ocampo fied forthe iupenson ofthe cv ese becase of the exeence ofthe administrative cge The aGiniative case was the ofthoot ofan incident where the ro and nephlis of Ocampo, all minon, were aerated because they were Wandering the sees pst curew, an act Punisbeunder an ordinance. Later on the manors were aeguived a hey {al unde the exceptions in he oninnce hand, then the wit of poxesion and wit of demolition would neces be ml and void, Not only that The demolition of the ‘omsracons inthe parcel of land would prove erly unjust to the Private espondens, u 61. Hipoitov. Cour of Appeals, 230 SCRA 19: (1954) (2. 1d, 200, 64, lat 03 (emphat spplied, (64, Ocampo v.Baeraventr, $5 SCRA 267 (1974 2007] WRIT OF POSSESSION 619 Ceampo then filed with the Office of the Mayor and with the Police ‘Commission (POLCOM) an administrative case agnnst the aresting oficers for serious misconduct, grave abuse of authority, and commission of a felony. The respondent is these administrative cates then filed 4 civil case for damages against Ocampo for the alleged harssment the latter committed in charging the former with administrative cases. ‘The Coure concluded that che administrative cae! did not constiete 2 prejudicial question to the civil exe, using as rationale the nature of a prejudicial question 2 stated inthe Civil Code. Simply, the Civil Code tates {that a prejudicial question must be decided before any criminal prosecution bbaed on the same facts may proceed. In this case, since there was no criminal proeevtion, then, there can be no prejudicial question. E, Criminal Adminisative Caer Combination ‘The cate of Calo v. Degama! concerned a disbarment case with three criminal cates agian Degamo. “5. Only the POLCOM eave was pending beciise the Mayor exonerated by the respondents, 66. Qrampo, SCRA at 271. [A careful comsideation ofthe record dicoes that the principal cue tm the complaint for damages ie the alleged malicious Sling of the dminitive ‘ates by the petiioner again the policemen fespondents. The deteminstion ofthis uexion is primarily dependent fon the outcome ofthe administrative cate before the POLCOM. The Tespordent’ complaint for damages is zed on their claim thatthe Miminizative case led aginst them before the POLCOM is rmabcious, unfounded and aimed co harass them. The veracity of this sMleyation uot for ust deteamine, for if We rule and alow the civil ase for damages to proceed on that ground, there tthe posiliry cat "Be cour « quo in deciding ssid cate might declare the respondents | etme of harsement and thereby indrecly sincere with the proceedings before the POLCOM, The repondents' ase for damages before dhe lower court cherefre, pemazre at it was Bled ding {he pendency ofthe adminiarative cave agaist the respondens before he POLCOM. ‘The posbiity cannot be overlooked thar the POLCOM may hand down a deciion advene to the rspondents, in which ease the damage suit will become unfounded and hiseless for ‘wanting incase of con, , (69, Calo, Demo, 29 SCRA 447 9). 620 ATENEO LAW JOURNAL Ivor. s2:609 The disbarment proceeding was instituted aguinst Deyamo for “having committed fae satement under oith or perjury” in connection with his appointment as Chief of Police of Carmen, Agusan. The facts were ‘unrebutted: (On 17 Jnuary 199, respondent Eachar Dagan, at applicant to the postion of Chie of Police of Camen, Aguan, subscribed and swore 1 be filedoot “information Sheet” before Mayor Jose Malini of the same rmunicpliy. The sbeer called for aniver about naime, penonal Cicomanees, edn atainment, cv eervice eligibility and se forth, ‘One em required tobe filed out eae Cimino oc mcd, f amy, iin the ahh i not rah the Coat Sate the deta of cae nd he Bal outcome)” Yo which respondent answered, “Nowe.” Having accomped the fo, the respondent was appointed mayor to the pesicon app for. However, on the day the respondent swore tthe Information sheet, there war pending aaisst him in the Court of Fit Instance of Bohl. fr legal postion of explosive powder Price othe commencement of thi sdminisrative ase, eupondent wat ako charged for perjry «on the sme fics upon Which he is now preceeded agains 2s member ofthe Philippine ba “The respondent ised th? defense that he made thot representations in 00d th Believing sae che question refered toa judgment or conviction in crioinal eases. The Coot, however, stated that it wa plainly and clealy ‘ten in the questionnaire tht it only cle for an information and not neces judgment ina ciminal cs, proved bythe phase “which dd not each the Cour” In addition, while Degamo never raised the defense of the existence of a prejudicial queton,tthe Court nevertheless sai that the criminal ess fed gst him do not constute prejudicial questions to the disharmens cae [Nor was the pendency of dhe Criminal Case No. 2194 (for pes) 4 _Pecjudicial question, since the ground for disbarment in the proceeding wat fot for conviction of a crime involving moral cupicude but for gross (8. 1244p (emphasis ope). 2007] WRIT OF POSSESSION oar misconduct A violation of criminal lw i noe bar to disbarment and an. acquittal i no obsace to cancellation of the lawyer's license.” In Re: Agro A. Brillante” concerned an administrative complaint against Ate. Brilates and a criminal case for noarzing a deed of ale of eal property without being commisioned as & notary public, in violation of race 171 of the Revised Penal Code,” nd knowingly introducing the deed as evidence in 2 civil xs, in violation of article 172 of the Revised Penal Code.% Ay. Brilantes contended shit che criminal cate pending posed a ppecudiciat question co the resolution of che primordial isue in the Sdminitraive case. The Court, however, stated that this contention was lunmeritoriows. I stated in pact chat, "iti Ro sound judi policy to await the Final resolution ofa criminal case before we... act on a complaint. aginst 2 lawyer and impose the judgment appropriate... foltherwite, this Court will be efecvely rendered helpless fom vigorously applying the rules on ‘mision (0 and continuing membership in the legal profession ...""5 Als, 8 dabarment tse is diferent from a criminal cage in tems ofthe evidence required through and the factors ander which an accused may acquitted. Ina criminal case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required. On the other hhand, in a disbarment proceeding, only a preponderance of evidence is necesary. In a criminal case, an accused may be acquited by the mere fact that the prosecution filed co prove his guilt but not necessarily because the scouted did not commit the crime. This is not the same with disbarment ces lhe 4s0. 70. Id, (Ging VI MANUEL V, MoRAN, COMMENTS ON THE RULES OF COURT 242 (196) ed), ‘i, Hat 430 (cing In: Del Rosso, 52 Phi. 99 (0508) ya. Re Agipine A Bellantes, 76 SCRA 1 (1977). ‘7. An Act Revising the Penal Code and Other Penal Laws [REVISED PENML Cope}, Act No. 3815, a. 171 (1930) (Eifion by public officer employee cr notty or ecleiati inin 74, att. 172 (efcation by private indvideal and we of Gifed document) 275, Bilas, 96 SCRA at 15 (emphasis supplied. 76. Fin, the respondent has not cited, and this Court doesnot find, any provision of the Constintion, she status, or the Rules of Cour ‘ich can justify the theory. Second, in 2 criminal ease i's the duty of the proecuion to prove thatthe accuved tguily beyond resonable 64 ATENEO LAW JOURNAL [vo1. s2:600 to the fore in the cate of United CMC Textile Workes Union v. Bureau of Labor Relations8 United CMC Textile Workers Union wat a legitimate lkbor organization and dhe incumbere collective bargaining representative of all rank-and-file worker, of Cenral Textile Mill, Inc. (CENTEX) Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) was ao a legitimate [bor organization seeking representation asthe bargaining agent of the rank and-le worker of CENTEX. Petitones fled an unit labor practice case agaist CENTEX and PAFLU alleging that CENTEX had helped. and coopersted in the organitation of the Central Textile Mill, Inc. Local PAFLU. The later were allegedly ale to solicit signatures of employees of the company who were members of the complainant union eo difiliate ffom cémpainant union and join the respondent PAFLU during company time and inside the company premiss. While che ULP case was pending, a petition for cenification election was fled. ‘The Court held thatthe pendency of the ULP case posed a prejudicial question to the certification elector. Otherwise, the eeriication election ‘may lead to the selection of an empleyer-dominated or company union and, when the court find in the mar labor practice cae that tise the situation, the union will be deceriied and che whole proceedings will be nlifed.* “Under setled jurisprudence, the peadency of a formal charge of company domination is prejudicial. question tat, until decided bar proceedings for a certlicason election, che reason being thatthe votes ofthe member: of the dominated union cosld not be free." G. Blin Ces In the cae of Ip». Gonzales. 2 criminal complaint was filed with the Court of Fist Instance of Catanduanes by respondent Francisco A. Perfecto, ‘one of the candidates for the lone congsional seat of that province in the rational elections, charging all the petitioners with having allegedly conspired to have petitioner Exela lip vote in that elections in November of 1965 with the aid and use of white carbon paper for the purpose of 83, United CMC Textle Workess Union ». Boreas of Labor Retons, 138 SCRA 316 (1984). 84. 322 (ching The Sandand Ciguene Woskers Union v. CLR, eal, 101 Phil 126957) 85. dt 320 (tng The Standard Cigaese Workers Union v. CLR. a, 101 Phil 126-2937); Mana Paper Mil Employees v. Coore of Industral Relations, 104 Phil. 10 (1988), 6, Isp v. Gonzales, 39 SCRA 255 1971. 2007] WRIT OF POSSESSION fas identifying her vote, a practice chimed tc be violative of section 135," in relation to sections 1838 and 185, of the Revised Election Code. Then ‘again, petitioners fled, through counsel, 2 motion to suspend the preliminary investigation on the ground of the existence of a prejudicial question raised in Election Protese No. 168 before the Howie Electoral Tabunal, which private respondent had ako fled agains: the proclaimed winner, Jose M, Alberto “The Court, in deciding thatthe election protest filed did not constitute 3 prejudicial question to the criminal cas, teasoned that the former did not foncem the incidents pertinent to the later. “To begin with, there (wa) here no showing that the specific incident involving petitioner Estea Iip [als involved in the protest before the Hlectoral Tribunal of the House of [Representatives referred to by petitioners." Moreover, the election protest wat not determinative of the innocence or guile of the accused in the cximinal case" 1p, The Revit Hlection Cade, Republic Ax No. 180, § 135 (1917) (uperseded ‘by Omnibus Election Code ofthe Philippine, Bass Parana Bly 81 (1985) 88, 14.5183, 80, Hd. § 285 ’ 90. ip, 39 SCRA at 265 (citing Jimenesv, Avera, 22 SCRA 1380 (1968), Ie ie te that in sid electoral proest, the Hlectoral Tribunal must necesinly resolve the question of whether or not protetee therein tnd his leader or fellowes: wed cabo paper forthe purpose of ‘enfVing ertsin voles cas inthe elections concemed but as pointed fut by private respondent — and thi i noe denied by pestioners — the exibon paper allegedly used by pettioner Este Isp, which s the bis ofthe criminal complaint sgaitxpetiionen, is not among the hhundeeds of auch white carbo piper devices akeady marked 2s ‘exhibits in sid electoral protest and, according fo private fespondent, the carbon paper alepedy wed by petioner Escela spi tll in his possession; ie fellows then, cat even f the Electoral Taibuna should Find tha there realy had been exensve we of such catbon paper device by other voter, ah finding would not nosey be derinative of the gui ov irmsene of rtitonee we the emi complaint fled aginst them in ths ase (emphasis supplied) pie Hh a 365-66. We se no reason for holding that te exchsive junction confomed upon the Hove Blectorl Tribunal e be “the soe judge of all conests felting to the election, resume and qulications" ofthe members of the Howe of Representatives shold deprive the cours of thie Jurisdiction to ery and decide criminal charges related to contests Bled 628 ATENEO LAW JOURNAL Ivor. $2:600 Antrge v. Pano reiterates the doctine enunciated in the case of lip, @ octine ako espoused by earlier cases ke Duala v. City Attmuy,?? and Fal, J, . Prova Fal of Barges tata itis only afer a preliminary invesgation thatthe Court can determine the existence of probable cause ‘which would wartant the holding of the accused for wal — as absent a finding of probable cause, che complaint would be automatically dismised = the motion for suspension on the ground of the existence ofa prejudicial ‘question may only be led after a criminal case i already filed in court. V.ANALYSIS ‘This section concer: ise in answesing the legal sues pot ro the fore a the beginning of che atte. A. Apphabily to Other Types of Cases ‘The doctrine ofthe predic] question was adopted by the Philippines from Spain a6 the need for the doctrine arose. In Spain, the application of che dbocrine requires that there ate atleast two sues in two diferent cases, ‘where one ise is cognizable by anther tribunal, and the resolution of such ise is prejudicial to the principal setion. This was the requirement in Spain 1 thee cours aze divided according to diferent jurisdictions, chat is, there fare cours of exclusive civil jurisdiction while there are chose of exclusive criminal jurisdiction. Spanish courts enforced this policy as they wanted to void conflicting decisions of diferent tribunal. In the Philippines on the other hand, our courts exercie jurisdiction lover cates of diffrent natures. For instance, the same court handles both civil and criminal cats, but the cour hearing the civil case is considered ferent and isnt from itelf whem hears the criminal case ‘The fee thatthe Spanish courts are organized according to the types of cues they hear may have strengthened the application of che prejudicial ith aid ebay, cxept peti in exmeme Imence where he {pesion of who may be dee! lp lected. Te wool depend Edney on wheter orn he cnn acim the acesed teen loony Commis byte ni accel sce then might {eur forthe buna nd the Gor to make spate contoy erincnitnt fig, aaa 2 Aang. Po, 7 SCRA 18 (979) 93, Daly. Cy Aten, $ SCRA 193 (196) 94. le Jv. Provincial Faso aang, 6 SCRA 462 (196). 2007) WRIT OF POSSESSION oy question to civil and criminal cases exclusively. This may have been the reason why the application of the dactrine of the prejudicial question in the Philippines has been limited to such types of cases. As Philippine cours are, however, organized differently fom Spanish cours, and as Philippine courte exercise theit jurisdictions diferendy from Spanish cours, the aplication of | the doctrine ofthe prejudicial queson fas evolved and adopted itself to the Philippine judicial setting. The doctrine may have had is roots fom the Spanish juisdction but it grew branches and bore fruits in the Philippine Jurisdiction. ‘The Rules of Courts have long defined a prejudicial question to exit ‘when a civil ese and a criminal case are pending, implying tha the doctine js applicable only when these types of cases are present. Despite this the Supreme Cour cited and discussed the doctrine ina varying manner, even When the requisite civil and criminal caes are absent. For instance, the cases (of Mabale ». Apalisok,» Temi v. Court of Appeals?” Cares v. Sandoval Manclo v. Court of Appeals Yalioncov. Court of Appeal Yu v. Pilpyine Canmesial Intemational Bark," Searty Bank v. Vico, © Wg Jon Realty % Espatol © Hipolita . Cour of Appess% Ouimpe &: Buenaventura, 5 Quiamiba ». Osos, Vided v. RTC of Negros Oriental, Br. 42,7 Josom Hv 95. The Rules of Cour snes the 1964 Roles of Cour hiv provided the, “A pein forthe suspension ofthe criminal action based upon the pendency of 3 Prjudiial quation in cv cre may only be pretented by 39) pacry ang ‘he eal ofthe criminal scion” The wording may have changed le the tes “civ and “ciminal” have always been preset, 96, Mable v. Apalisok, 88 SCRA 234 (197) (cv-cvil). 7. Tamin v. Court of Appeal, 208 SCRA 863 (1922) (vi-cii), 1%, Carle v. Sandoval, 471 SCRA 266 (2005) 99. Manalo . Cour of Appeals, 36 SCRA 752 (2001 (civi-c. too, Yalienco v. Coun of Appe, 93 SCRA 145 (002) (cv). ror. Ya v. Philippine Commercial International Bank, 485 SCRA s6 (200¢) (civil ii, 102, Secutity Bank ¥. Victoro, 488 SCRA 6 (208) (viii, 103, Wong Jn Realy v. Espa, 472 SCRA 496 (2005) (ivi-civil) 14 Hipoltov. Court of Appeals, 230 SCRA 191 (1994) frninal-cimina. 105. Ocampo v Buensventars, $$ SCRA 267 (1974) (iihadminiasie). 106. Quismbso . Osorio, 158 SCRA 67 (r98)(civi-einisative). oy Widad v. REC of Negros Oriental, Br. 42, 227 SCRA 271 (2953) (vik adios, 8 ATENEO IAW JOURNAL [vou. sa:600 Court of Appeas"F Cal . Degamo,®? Re: Agripin A. Brillante" Dinsay 2 ‘Gicas* Tolin v. Moya The Standard Cigarete Werkes" Union (PLUM) v CAR, eta! Ace Mines Employees and Ace United Werkers Union v. Aaaje Labor Union ond Azaje Mining Ca" BLP. Goodrich Philippines, Ic. v BE. Gaodich (Mike Facory) Confido and Salaried Employes Union- NATU,"5 United CMC Textile Wore: Union v, Bureau of Labor Relations lip v, Gonzales? Asta v. Pana® and City of Pasig». Commision on lesions, did not concern themselves sricly with civil and criminal cases alone. These cares involved both cvil cates, both criminal cases, civil and adminisrative cases, criminal and administrative cases, bor and election fsses While this isthe situation, the Court never sid that no prejudicial ‘question exited because the requisite civil and criminal cases provided for by the Rulks do not cbs; instead, che Cour ruled that there was or there was ‘no pejuitcial question depending on the merits ofthe case. Ie must be noted that during the time when these cas were decided, the Rules have aleeady been codified and, yet, che applicason was never stricly according t0 the lett of the Roles Indeed, the Supreme Court may have been relaxed inthe application of the doctrine jn relation tothe elements provided by the Rules but they aso have been stict in the sense that ou of the 63 ess the author examined, it ‘wat only in eight-inandes when the Court applied the doctrine of the prgjudical question. And out of 24 cases which were not ofthe typical civil "ol Josn Iv. Coust of Appel, 482 SCRA 360 (300) (civil administrative). 1op.Calov. Degamo, 20 SCRA. 47 (1557) (criminal administrative) sc. Re: Agsipino A. Brillantes,76°SCRA 1,197) (crituinal-administrative). "141 Dinszy v Coco, 46 SCRA 146 (1986) (criminal administrative). 112,Tomln v, Moya, 483 SCRA 154 (206) (riminal-sdministaive) 113. The Standad Cipote Worker’ Union (PLUM) v. CLR, et al, 101 Phil 126 (a9s7) aber. rg.Acoje Mines Enployees and Acgje United Workers Union , Acnje Labor ‘Union and Acoje Mining Co, 204 Ph 814 (198) (abo) SBF. Goodkich Philippine, le. ¥. BF. Goodeich (Marikina Factory) CConfdenial and Ssbned Employees Union-NATU, 49 SCRA 332 (1973) (abo 116,United CMC Textile Workets Unon v, Boreas of Labor Relations a, 128 ‘SCRA 316 (1984) Gabor, 7 kp v, Gonales, 39 SCRA 255 (191) (ection). 118. Aon Pano, 67 SCRA 18 (173) (lection), 119.City of Pasig. Commision on Eketions, 314 SCRA 179 (1999) (lection. 2007] WRIT OF POSSESSION 629 and criminal case combination, it was only in one case where the Court applied the doctrine. rom a reading of the cates, it can be observed thatthe leniency of the Court in applying the Rules to its lewer is equalized by the fact that che Court exercises prudence and reasonableness in ascertaining whether or nota prejudicial question exits in a particular exe. ‘Also, it becomes more apparent that the doctrine adopted 2 more pragmatic sense in the Philippine jurisdiceon. Ie became less technical and it became more responsive 0 the purpose i serves. It adopted 2 more pragmatic approach such that its applicuion was not limited eo civil and criminal cats alone, it ao found applicaon in other types of cass. ‘The folowing discussions will estate what the Court declared 2s to the doctrine of the prejudicial question in relation to the different case combinations, under the different subdivisions. These declarations are restated in response to the fist legal isue posed at the beginning of the article: athe ae other possible combination of cases — other than cil-iminl, bch as cic, criminaleriinal, calming, eiminal adminisative, labor, and eon cazes — that may use te dodrin, cn the doctrine be used ces in these instances? 1, Givil-Civil Cases (Can the doctrine ofthe prejudicial question be used when the cases that are pending are both civil cases? Not one cate hat yet been decided where the Court categorically stated tha the dectrine may Gnd application in such an instance. What the Coure has categorically stated is that 3 the caes ate both civil in nature or s the cases are ofthe same nature, no prejudicial question Nevertheless, there were various insunces when the partes raised the existence of a prejudicial qusstion, to which the Cour, a an obier dum declared that, technically speaking, no prejudicial question may exist between two civil caes, bul, substanivey speaking, 4 prejudicial question ‘may exit in thar the resolusion of the issue in one civil case“is.a logical antecedent tothe resolution of the other civil ease "20 Se, Mabalew. Apalisok, 8 SCRA 234 (979); Carlos v. Cour of Appeal, 268 'SCRA 35 (1997); Manalov. Cour of Appel, 366 SCRA 753 (2001); Yulienco ¥. Court of Appeas, 393 SCRA 143 (202), Ye v. Phiipine Tncerational Bank, 485 SCRA 6 (200, 630 [ATENEO LAW JOURNAL [wor. $2:600 Fer instance, in the cases of Tamin and Seurty Bank, while the Court

    You might also like