YES, an action for specific performance, even if pending in the HLURB, an administrative agency, raises a

prejudicial question that must first be determined before the criminal case for there exists a
prejudicial question
 if the award to the undisclosed bidder of the orbital lot 153°E is, in the civil case declared
valid for being within Lichauco’s scope of authority to thus free her from liability for
damages, there would be no prohibited act to speak of nor would there be basis for undue
injury claimed to have been suffered by petitioner.
o account is in order

HELD:
YES,
liability and cannauthorized 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 refused to deliver the
TCTs despite demands. Because of this, SMP filed a complaint-affidavit in the Office of the Prosecutor
(OCP) of Las Pinas charging respondent directors and officers of BF Homes with non-delivery of titles in
violation of SecE: Ark Travel Express, Inc. v. Abrogar, et al., G. R. No. 137010, August 29, 2003, 410
SCRA 149.

However, Ark Travel filed an "Urgent Petition for Automatic Review" with the DOJ and its previous
decision was reversed and directed the City Prosecutor to proceed with the prosecu inium ve of the
question of guilt in the criminal case.

 Here, the action for specific performance in the HLURB would determine wh o the undisclosed
bidder of the orbital lot 153°E is, in the civil case declared valid for being within
Lichauco’s scope of authority to thus free her from liability for damages, there would be
no prohibited act to speak of nor would there be basis for undue injury claimed to have
been suffered by petitioner.

NO
 while the evaluation of a complaint involves the discretion of the investigating officer, its
exercise should not be abused or wanting in legal basis
 “the proceedings may only be suspended, not dismissed, and that it may be made only
upon petition, and not at the instance of the judge alone or the investigating officer.”
[according to Yap v. Paras, Section 6, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court]
 To give imprimatur to the Ombudsman’s dismissal of petitioner’s criminal complaint due
to prejudicial question would
o Not olny run counter to the provision of Section 6, Rule 111 of the RoC
o It would sanction the extinguishment of the criminal liability, if there be any,
through prescription under Article 89 vis a vis Article 90 and 91 of the RPC.

personal liability and cannot be im NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE insofar only as said court, acting as an
appellate court, puted to the State.
rectors and officers of BF Homes with non-delivery of titles in violation of Sec. 25 in relation to
Sec. 29 both of PD No. 957 (The Subdivision and Condomsed SMP’s petition.

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:
YES, an action for specific performance, even if pending in the HLURB, an administrative agency,
raises a prejudicial question that must first be determined before the criminal case for violation
of Sec.