MANUEL R. JIMENEZ, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ALBERTO V. AVERIA, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE AND OFELIA V. TANG AND ESTEFANIA DE LA CRUZ OLAN­DAY, RESPONDENTS.

In Criminal Case No. TM-235 of the Court of First Instance of
Cavite respondents Ofelia V. Tang and Estefania de la Cruz Olanday were charged
with estafa, the information filed alleg­ing that, having received from
Manuel Jimenez the sum of P20,000.00 with which to purchase for him a fishing
boat known as “Basnig”, with the obligation on their part to return
the money on January 30, 1963 in case they should fail to buy the fishing boat,
they misappropriated the amount aforesaid, to the damage and prejudice of
Jimenez.

Before arraignment, the accused filed Civil Case No. 6636 against
Jimenez in the Court of First Instance of Quezon con­testing the validity of a
certain receipt signed by them on October 25, 1962 (Annex “A” of the
present petition) wherein they acknowledged having received from him the sum of
P20,000.00 with which to purchase for him a fishing boat and its acces­sories,
and the further sum of P240.00 as agent’s commission, with the obligation, on
their part, to return the aforesaid amounts on January 30, 1963 in case they
were unable to buy the fishing boat. 
Their complaint alleged that they had never re­ceived any amount from
Jimenez and that their signatures on the questioned receipt were secured by
means of fraud, deceit and intimidation employed by him.  Several days later, they filed a motion in
the aforementioned criminal action to suspend proceedings therein on the ground
that the determination of the issue involved in Civil Case No. 6636 of the
Court of First Instance of Quezon was a prejudicial question.  The respondent judge granted the motion in an
order dated October 18, 1963.

The petition now before Us is one for certiorari pre­dicated upon
the preposition that in issuing the order just mentioned, the respondent judge
committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.  Properly, however, the action is for the
issuance of a writ of mandamus, the relief prayed being for this Court “to
order the Hon. Court of Cavite Province to proceed with the case and to order
the Hon. Court at Quezon Province to dismiss the civil case”.

The issue to be decided is whether the determination of the issue
raised in the civil case mentioned heretofore is a prejudicial question, in the
sense that it must be first resolved before the proceedings in the criminal
case for estafa may proceed.

A prejudicial question has been defined to be one which arises in
a case, the resolution of which (question) is a logical antecedent of the issue
involved in said case, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal
(Ency­clopedia Juridical Española, p. 228). 
In People vs. Aragon, G. R. No. L-5930, February 17, 1954, We held in
connection with this subject that the question claimed to be prejudicial in
nature must be determinative of the case before the court, and that
jurisdiction to try and resolved said question must be lodged in another
tribunal.

Applying the above considerations to the instant case, it will be
readily seen that the alleged prejudicial question is not determinative of the
guilt or innocence of the parties charged with estafa, because even on
the assumption that the execution of the receipt whose annulment they sought in
the civil case was vitiated by fraud, duress or intimidation, their guilt could
still be established by other evidence showing, to the degree required by law,
that they had actually received from the complainant the sum of P20,000.00 with
which to buy for him a fishing boat, and that, instead of doing so, they
misappropriated the money and refused or otherwise failed to return it to him
upon demand.  The contention of the
private respondents herein would be tenable had they been charged with
falsification of the same receipt involved in the civil action.

Were We to sanction the theory advanced by the respondents Tang
and De la Cruz Olanday and adopted by the respondent judge, there would hardly
be a case for estafa that could be prosecuted speedily, it being the
easiest thing for the accused to block the proceedings by the simple expedient
of filing an independent civil action against the complainant, raising therein
the issue that he had not re­ceived from the latter the amount alleged to have
been mis­appropriated.  A claim to this
effect is properly a matter of defense to be interposed by the party charged in
the criminal proceeding.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the
respondent Court of First Instance of Cavite to proceed with­out undue delay
with the trial of Criminal Case No. TM-235, with the result that the order
complained of suspending the proceedings therein until after Civil Case No.
6636 of the Court of First Instance of Quezon has been resolved is hereby set
aside.  With costs against the
respondents except the respondent judge.

Reyes, Acting C.J., Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Castro, J., no part.