SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES, INC. vs. SEC. HERNANDO B. PEREZ, et al.. (G.R. No. 166836.

September 4, 2013)

Facts:
The petitioner San Miguel filed a complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Las
Pinas against the respondent directors of BF Homes. The complaint was due to the non-
delivery of the respondent of the titles of the lands purchased by the petitioner. At the same
time, the petitioner also sued BF homes for specific performance praying to compel the latter
to release certain TCTs in its favor. San Miguel Properties filed a motion to suspend
proceedings in the OCP Las Piñas, citing the pendency of BF Homes’ receivership case in the
SEC, which was opposed by BF Homes.
The OCP Las Piñas dismissed the complaint of San Miguel on the ground that there
existed a prejudicial question necessitating the suspension of the criminal action until after the
issue on the liability of the distressed BF Homes was first determined by the SEC en banc or by
the HLURB.

Issue:
Whether or not there is a prejudicial question that would warrant the suspension of the
complaint?

Ruling:
Yes. In the law, a prejudicial question arises when the resolution of a case would
determine the guilt or innocence of one in another case since such is intimately connected
with the crime. The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid conflicting
decisions. According to the court, the resolution of the case in the HLURB would determibe
whether there was violation of PD NO. 957. It had to be found whether or not San Miguel was
truly entitled to the delivery of TCTs or not. If it would be found that they were not entitled
since Atty. Orendain did not have any authority to represent BF Homes in the sale, the basis
for the liability in the case for violation of PD No. 957 would be lost.
It should also be noted that a party who raises a prejudicial question is deemed to have
hypothetically admitted that all the essential elements of the crime have been adequately
alleged in the information, considering that the Prosecution has not yet presented a single
piece of evidence on the indictment or may not have rested its case