APOLINARIO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL., PETITIONERS AND APPELLANTS, VS. THE CITY FISCAL, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES.

De la Cruz versus the City Fiscal of Dagupan

The Case

This is the story of Apolinario de la Cruz and his companions, who asked the courts to stop the City Fiscal of Dagupan City from prosecuting them for falsification of a public document. They argued that two civil cases already pending in another court had to be resolved first, because those cases would decide whether they were guilty or innocent. The Supreme Court used this case to draw the precise boundaries of what we call a prejudicial question — the question that must be settled before a criminal action may proceed. Every bar candidate who has ever been asked when a criminal case must wait for a civil case will meet this doctrine here.

Procedural History

Carmelita de la Cruz filed a civil complaint in the Court of First Instance of Lingayen, Pangasinan, seeking to annul the affidavit of adjudication executed by Apolinario de la Cruz. Apolinario answered and, in a cross-complaint, sought to annul the deed of donation invoked by Carmelita. Meanwhile, the City Fiscal of Dagupan City summoned the petitioners to appear before him for investigation of a charge of falsification of public document in connection with that same affidavit of adjudication.

Counsel for the petitioners told the fiscal that the two pending civil cases in Lingayen constituted a prejudicial question, and that the criminal action should be held in abeyance. Because the fiscal proposed to continue his investigation, the petitioners filed a petition for prohibition in the Court of First Instance of Dagupan, asking that the fiscal be restrained from filing an information or from further prosecuting them. The trial court denied the petition in its order of October 29, 1957, holding that the investigation had no bearing or relation with the two civil cases, and that the theory of prejudicial question could not be invoked. The petitioners appealed that order directly to the Supreme Court.

Facts

Francisca Bandong left a parcel of land. Apolinario de la Cruz executed an affidavit of adjudication in which he declared that he was the only heir of Francisca and adjudicated the parcel unto himself. Carmelita de la Cruz, however, claimed that the same parcel belonged to her, having inherited it from her father Ludovico de la Cruz, to whom Francisca had donated it.

On August 22, 1957, Carmelita filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Lingayen, Pangasinan, to declare the affidavit of adjudication null and void. In his answer, Apolinario alleged that the affidavit was made by him in good faith and with the consent of all the heirs of Francisca. In his cross-complaint, he claimed that the deed of donation invoked by Carmelita was fictitious and should be declared null and void.

On September 20, 1957, the petitioners were summoned by the Dagupan City Fiscal to appear before him for investigation of a charge of falsification of public document in connection with the affidavit of adjudication. The fiscal was told of the two pending civil cases and of the claim of a prejudicial question, but he proposed to continue with his investigation. That prompted the petition for prohibition, which the trial court denied.

Issues

• Whether or not the civil action for annulment of the affidavit of adjudication is a prejudicial question that must be resolved before the criminal investigation for falsification of public document may proceed.
• Whether or not the civil action for annulment of the deed of donation, raised in Apolinario's cross-complaint, is a prejudicial question to the same criminal investigation.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statute; it applies the settled definition of prejudicial question drawn from jurisprudence and from the commentators. The Court adopts this definition from the Spanish encyclopedia:

Cuestion prejudicial, es la que surge en un pleito o causa cuya resolucion es antecedente logico de la cuestion objeto del pleito o causa y cuyo conocimiento corresponda a los tribunales de otro orden o jurisdiccion.

This definition supplies the two elements the Court requires: the question must be determinative of the case before the court, and jurisdiction to try it must be lodged in another tribunal.

The Court also adopts this formulation from Herbari versus Concepcion:

Prejudicial question is understood in law to be that which must precede the criminal action, that which requires a decision before a final judgment is rendered in the principal action with which said question is closely connected. Not all previous questions are prejudicial, although all prejudicial questions are necessarily previous.

This tells us that being merely prior in time is not enough; the civil question must be closely connected to, and decisive of, the criminal case.

Finally, the Court cites this explanation from Moran:

A civil action is prejudicial when it refers to a fact separate and distinct from the offense charged but yet so intimately related thereto as to be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused.

This is the test the Court applies to both civil cases before it.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court acknowledged that the execution by Apolinario of the affidavit of adjudication, with its narration of facts, is intimately related to his guilt or innocence of the charge of falsification. But intimacy of relation is not enough. The resolution of the petition for annulment of the affidavit, whether affirmative or otherwise, does not and will not determine criminal responsibility in the falsification case. Regardless of the outcome of the civil case, the determination of the charge of falsification would be based on the truth or falsity of the narration of facts in the affidavit, especially with reference to the existence of heirs of Francisca besides Apolinario. The civil case, therefore, does not involve a prejudicial question.

On the second issue, the Court agreed with the trial court that the annulment of the deed of donation has no intimate relation to the criminal investigation, since Apolinario was not even a party to that deed. It may by no means be regarded as a prejudicial question.

The Court's reasoning rests on the two elements it drew from the definition: the civil question must be determinative of the case before the court, and jurisdiction over it must lie in another tribunal. Here the civil cases, even if resolved, would not decide the guilt or innocence of the accused in the falsification charge.

Doctrine

A prejudicial question is that which arises in a case, the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in that case, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. It has two elements: first, the question must be determinative of the case before the court; second, jurisdiction to try that question must be lodged in another tribunal.

A civil action is prejudicial to a criminal case when it refers to a fact separate and distinct from the offense charged, but yet so intimately related thereto as to be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Not all previous questions are prejudicial, although all prejudicial questions are necessarily previous. Where the outcome of the civil case would not determine criminal responsibility, there is no prejudicial question, and the criminal prosecution may proceed.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed order denying the petition for prohibition, with costs against the petitioners.

Remember This

The line to memorize is that a civil action is prejudicial only when it is so intimately related to the offense as to be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Examiners use this case to test whether you can distinguish a question that is merely previous from one that is truly prejudicial, and to test the two elements of a prejudicial question.