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.

Jimenez versus Averia

The Case

This is a petition filed by Manuel Jimenez against Judge Alberto Averia of the Court of First Instance of Cavite, and against Ofelia Tang and Estefania de la Cruz Olanday. Jimenez asks the Supreme Court to set aside the trial judge's order suspending a criminal case for estafa on the ground that a civil case pending in another court raised a prejudicial question. The case matters because it draws the precise boundary of the prejudicial question rule: a civil question is prejudicial only if its resolution is a logical antecedent of the criminal issue and is determinative of guilt or innocence. It also warns against using an independent civil action as a stratagem to stall criminal prosecution.

Procedural History

Before the Court of First Instance of Cavite, Tang and Olanday were charged with estafa. Before arraignment, they filed a civil action in the Court of First Instance of Quezon seeking to annul the receipt on which the criminal charge rested. Several days later they moved to suspend the criminal proceedings, claiming that the civil case presented a prejudicial question. The respondent judge granted the motion in an order dated October 18, 1963. Jimenez then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The Court noted that, properly viewed, the action is one for mandamus, since the relief prayed for is an order directing the Cavite court to proceed with the case and the Quezon court to dismiss the civil case.

Facts

The information in the Cavite criminal case alleged that Tang and Olanday received from Jimenez 20,000 pesos with which to buy for him a fishing boat known as a basnig, with the obligation to return the money on January 30, 1963 should they fail to buy the boat. It further alleged that they misappropriated the amount to his damage and prejudice.

Before arraignment, the two accused filed a civil case in Quezon contesting the validity of a receipt they had signed on October 25, 1962. By that receipt they acknowledged receiving from Jimenez 20,000 pesos for the purchase of a fishing boat and its accessories, plus 240 pesos as agent's commission, with the obligation to return the amounts on January 30, 1963 if they could not buy the boat. Their complaint alleged that they had never received any amount from Jimenez and that their signatures were secured through fraud, deceit, and intimidation.

Several days later, they moved to suspend the criminal proceedings on the ground that the issue in the Quezon civil case was a prejudicial question. The respondent judge granted the motion.

Issues

• Whether or not the issue raised in the civil case for annulment of the receipt is a prejudicial question that must first be resolved before the criminal case for estafa may proceed.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statutory text; it relies on the settled definition of a prejudicial question, which the Court states as follows:

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.

This definition supplies the test the Court applies: the civil question must be a logical antecedent of the criminal issue and must belong to another tribunal.

The Court also restates its earlier holding in People versus Aragon, which it applies here:

The question claimed to be prejudicial in nature must be determinative of the case before the court, and jurisdiction to try and resolve said question must be lodged in another tribunal.

This is the controlling standard: the civil question must determine the outcome of the criminal case, not merely touch on it.

Ruling

The Court resolved the lone issue against the private respondents. The alleged prejudicial question is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused, because even assuming that the execution of the receipt was vitiated by fraud, duress, or intimidation, their guilt could still be established by other evidence showing that they actually received the 20,000 pesos with which to buy the boat, and that instead of doing so they misappropriated the money and failed to return it upon demand. The Court added that the contention would be tenable had they been charged with falsification of the same receipt involved in the civil action.

The Court also weighed the practical consequence of the respondent judge's theory. Were it to sanction that theory, there would hardly be a case for estafa that could be prosecuted speedily, since it would be the easiest thing for an accused to block the proceedings by filing an independent civil action raising the issue that he had not received the amount alleged to have been misappropriated. Such a claim is properly a matter of defense to be interposed in the criminal proceeding itself.

Doctrine

A prejudicial question is one whose resolution is a logical antecedent of the issue in the case and whose cognizance pertains to another tribunal. To warrant suspension of a criminal proceeding, the civil question must be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused, not merely related to the evidence. Where the civil action attacks the validity of a receipt but the crime may still be proved by other evidence of receipt and misappropriation, the civil question is not prejudicial. An accused cannot stall a criminal prosecution by filing an independent civil action raising a matter that is properly a defense in the criminal case.

Disposition

The Court granted the relief sought, ordering the Court of First Instance of Cavite to proceed without undue delay with the trial of the estafa case, setting aside the order suspending the proceedings, with costs against the private respondents except the respondent judge.

Remember This

Memorize the two-part test: the civil question must be a logical antecedent and must be determinative of guilt or innocence, and jurisdiction over it must lie in another tribunal. Examiners use this case to test whether a pending civil action for annulment of a receipt suspends a criminal case for estafa, and to test the rule that a matter of defense cannot be converted into a prejudicial question.