San

2006
GR 134887 Doctrine of State Immunity:
When a public officer, in this case the Ombdusman, acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, any
injury caused by him is his own
ether or not SMP was le San Miguel Properties, Inc., Petitioner,
vs.
Sec. Hernando B. Perez, Albert C. Aguirre, Teodoro B. Arcenas, Jr., Maxy S. Abad, James G.
Barbers, Stephen N. Sarino, Enrique N. Zalamea, Jr., Mariano M. Martin, Orlando O. Samson,
ISSUE:
Whether the HLURB administrative case for specific performance could be a reason to suspend
the proceedings on the criminal complaint for the violation of PD No. 957 on the ground of a
prejudicial question.

HELD:
20 TCTs in its favor.

The OCP dismissed SMP’s criminal complaint for violation of PD No. 957 on the ground, among
others, that there existed a preju
Petitioner San Miguel Properties (SMP) purchased from BF Homes Inc., represented by Atty.
Orendain as its duly authorized rehabilitation receiver, 130 residential lots in its subdivision in
BF Homes Parañaque. However, 20 TCTs (out of 40) were withheld delivery by BF Homes since
Atty. Orendain had ceased to be its rehabilitation receiver at the time of the transactions;; BF
Homes 25 of PD No. 957 could be resolved. 

 Prejudicial question is that which arises in a case, the resolution of which is a logical antecedent
of the issue involved in the criminal case, and the cognizance of which pertains to another
tribunal. It is determinative of the criminal case, but the jurisdiction to try and resolve it is
lodged in another court or tribunal. It is based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but
is so intimately connected with the crime that it determines the guilt or innocence of the
accused. The ration in the HLURB praying to compel BF Homes to release the DOTC),
o relative to the launching, ownership, operation and management of a Philippine
satellite by a Filipino-owned or controlled private consortium or corporation
Pursuant to Article 4 of the MOU, the consortium of private telecommunications carriers formed
a corporation and adopted the corporate name Ph
Herein petitioner Ark Travel Express, Inc. (Ark Travel for brevity) filed with the City Prosecutor of Makati a
criminal complaint for False Testimony in a Civil Case under Article 182 of the Revised Penal Code
another court or tribunal. It is based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but is so
intimately connected with the crime that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused.
The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid conflicting decisions.

The concept of a prejudicial question involves a civil action and a criminal case. Yet, contr
criminal action would decide whether or not BF Homes’ directors and officers were criminally
liable for withholding the 20 TCTs. The resolution of the former (admin case) must obviously
precede that of the latter, for should the HLURB hold SMP to be not BF Homes for specific
performance in the HLURB praying to compel BF Homes to release the 20 TCTs in its favor.

Th Buyers’ Protective Decree). Simultaneously, SMP sued BF Homes for specific performance

until after the issue on the liability of the distressed BF Homes was first determined by the SEC en banc
or by the HLUthe complaint on that account is in order
 Unknown Awardee for injunction to enjoin the award of orbital slot 153 E, declare its
nullity, and for damages
claiming that the offer was without its knowledge and that it subsequently came to learn that
another company whose identity had not been disclosed had submitted a bid and won RB. SMP
appealed the resolution of the OCP to the DOJ, which denied the same. Upon elevation of the
case to the CA via Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus, SMP submitted the issue of whether or
not HLURB Case presented a prejudicial
 . Because of this, SMP filed a complaint-affidavit in the Office of the Prosecutor (OCP) of Las
Pinas charging respondent di1994 June 6 – a Memorandum of Un ilippine Agila Satelite, Inc.
(PASI)
PASI President Rodrigo A. Silverio requested the then DOTC Secretary Amado S. Lagdameo
Petitioner San Miguel Properties (SMP) purchased from BF Homes Inc., represented by Atty. Orendain as
its duly
ns to another tribunal. It is determinative of the criminal case, but the jurisdiction to try and resolve it is
lodged in PHILIPPINE AGILA SATELLITE, INC. V. LICHAUCO
JULY 27
gally entitled to demand the delivery of the remaining 20 TCTs, while the Hence, the Secretary
of Justice did not commit grave abuse of discretion in upholding the dismissal of SMP’s criminal
complaint for violation of PD No. 957 for lack of probable cause and for reason of a prejudicial
question

Another contention of SMP:

SMP further submits that respondents could not validly raise the prejudicial question as a
reason to suspend the criminal proceedings because respondents had not themselves initiated
either the action for specific performance or the criminal action. It contends that the defense of
a prejudicial question arising from the filing of a related case could only be raised by the party
who filed or initiated said related case. The submission is unfounded. The rule on prejudicial
question makes no distinction as to who is allowed to raise the defense. Ubi lex non distinguit
nec nos distinguere debemos. When the law makes no distinction, we ought not to distinguish.

o , Jr. for official government confirmation of the assignment of Philippine