PEDRO III FORTICH-CELDRAN, JESUS, MANUEL, MIGUEL AND VICENTE, ALL SURNAMED FORTICH-CELDRAN, SANTIAGO CATANE AND ABELARDO CECILIO, PETITIONERS, VS. IGNACIO A. CELDRAN AND HON. CO…

Fortich-Celdran versus Celdran

The Case

This is a petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals ordering the suspension of a criminal prosecution for falsification of a public document on the ground of a pre-judicial question. The accused in the criminal case, together with the subscribing officer and the person who filed the questioned document, are the petitioners. The private complainant, Ignacio Celdran, is the respondent. The case matters because it fixes the classic definition of a pre-judicial question and shows how a civil action can hold a criminal prosecution in abeyance when the very authenticity of a document litigated in the civil case will determine guilt or innocence in the criminal case.

Procedural History

A suit for annulment of an extrajudicial partition of properties and for accounting was filed in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. After trial, that court rendered judgment declaring the extrajudicial partition valid as ratified by Ignacio Celdran, and later amended its decision to require the Fortich-Celdran children to pay Ignacio the balance of the agreed amount and to deliver two parcels of land. Ignacio Celdran appealed to the Court of Appeals, and that appeal remained pending.

Meanwhile, at the instance of Ignacio Celdran, an information for falsification of a public document was filed by the City Fiscal of Ozamis in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental. Ignacio Celdran moved to suspend the criminal proceedings on the ground of a pre-judicial question. The Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental denied the motion, ruling that the alleged forgery was not an issue in the civil case. Ignacio Celdran then filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction in the Court of Appeals, which decided in his favor and ordered the suspension of the criminal case due to a pre-judicial question. The accused in the criminal suit appealed to the Supreme Court.

Facts

Pedro Celdran died leaving children by a first marriage and children by a second marriage. A dispute arose over an extrajudicial partition of his properties. The children of the first marriage, joined by the administratrix of another brother, sued to annul the partition and for accounting. Ignacio Celdran was originally a plaintiff, but a motion to withdraw as co-plaintiff was filed bearing his signature. With leave of court, the remaining plaintiffs filed an amended complaint impleading Ignacio Celdran as a defendant, and he answered with a counterclaim and cross-claim.

After trial but before judgment, Ignacio Celdran had the motion to withdraw examined by the Police Department of Cebu City, which was of the view that the signature was falsified. Alleging newly discovered evidence, he asked for a new trial, which the court denied. All the parties except Ignacio Celdran then entered into an amicable settlement recognizing the extrajudicial partition as valid. As to Ignacio Celdran, the trial court rendered judgment declaring the partition valid for having been ratified by him, finding that he signed the motion to withdraw after receiving part of the agreed sum and two residential lots in return for his ratification.

Ignacio Celdran appealed, disputing the finding that he signed the motion to withdraw and maintaining that it is a forgery. At his instance, an information for falsification of a public document was filed against the Fortich-Celdran children, the subscribing officer Santiago Catane, and Abelardo Cecilio, who filed the motion. Ignacio Celdran then moved to suspend the criminal case on the ground of a pre-judicial question, which the trial court denied.

Issues

• Whether or not the civil action pending appeal poses a pre-judicial question to the criminal prosecution for falsification of the same motion to withdraw.
• Whether or not Ignacio Celdran, as private offended party, may file through counsel a motion to suspend the criminal case.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 5. Suspension by reason of pre-judicial question. - A petition for the suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a pre-judicial question in a civil case, may only be presented by any party before or during the trial of the criminal action.

This provision governs the timing and manner of raising the pre-judicial question, and the Court uses it to test whether Ignacio Celdran's motion was properly filed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there is a pre-judicial question. The trial court had ruled that Ignacio Celdran ratified the partition, citing among its reasons that he received part of the agreed sum and signed the motion to withdraw. Ignacio Celdran disputes this and maintains that the motion is a forgery. Since ratification is the principal issue in the civil action pending appeal, and the falsification or genuineness of the motion to withdraw is among the questions involved in that issue, the civil action poses a pre-judicial question to the criminal prosecution. The Court defined the concept thus:

A pre-judicial question is one that arises in a case, the resolution of which is a logical antecedent to the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal; that is, it is determinative of the case before the court and jurisdiction to pass upon the same is lodged in another tribunal.

The Court stressed that the motion to withdraw was presented as evidence of ratification in the civil action and its authenticity is assailed in the same civil action, so that the resolution of that point will in a sense be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal suit pending in another tribunal.

On the second issue, the Court held that the private offended party's right to file through counsel a motion to suspend the criminal case exists where, as here, the Fiscal who had direction and control of the prosecution did not object to the filing of the motion. The filing complied with Section 5 of Rule 111. The denial of the motion to suspend was therefore attended with grave abuse of discretion, and since the issue was squarely and definitely presented before the trial court, a motion for reconsideration was not necessary. Neither was appeal the remedy, since the order denying suspension is interlocutory and thus not yet appealable.

Doctrine

A pre-judicial question is one that arises in a case, the resolution of which is a logical antecedent to the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. It must be determinative of the case before the court, and jurisdiction to pass upon it must be lodged in another tribunal. Where the authenticity of a document presented as evidence in a pending civil case will determine the guilt or innocence of the accused in a criminal prosecution for falsification of that same document, the civil case poses a pre-judicial question that must first be decided. Under Section 5 of Rule 111, a petition for suspension of the criminal action based on a pre-judicial question may be presented by any party before or during the trial of the criminal action, and the private offended party may file it through counsel where the Fiscal does not object.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals ordering the suspension of the criminal case until the civil case shall have been decided, with costs against the appellants.

Remember This

Memorize the definition: a pre-judicial question is one whose resolution is a logical antecedent to the issue in the case before the court, and cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of a pre-judicial question and the procedural rule that the private offended party may move to suspend the criminal case through counsel when the Fiscal does not object.