RAFAEL JOSE CONSING, JR., PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Consing versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Rafael Jose Consing, Junior against the People of the Philippines. Consing was the accused in a criminal case for estafa through falsification of public document pending in Makati City, and he sought to stop his arraignment on the ground that civil cases between him and his complainant raised a prejudicial question. The case matters because it settles a rule every criminal procedure examinee must know: an independent civil action based on fraud, brought under Article 33 of the Civil Code, does not raise a prejudicial question and cannot suspend a criminal prosecution for estafa through falsification.

Procedural History

Consing moved to defer his arraignment in the Makati criminal case, invoking the pendency of civil cases in Pasig City and Makati City. The Regional Trial Court of Makati City granted the motion and suspended the criminal proceedings, and it later denied the prosecution's motion for reconsideration. The State then went to the Court of Appeals by petition for certiorari. The Court of Appeals initially dismissed the petition and upheld the trial court, agreeing that a prejudicial question existed. On motion for reconsideration by the State, however, the Court of Appeals amended its decision, reversed itself, set aside the trial court's orders, and directed the trial court to proceed with the hearing of the criminal case with dispatch. Consing's motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Facts

Consing negotiated and obtained for himself and for his mother, Cecilia de la Cruz, various loans totaling 18,000,000 pesos from Unicapital, secured by a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land registered in his mother's name. Unicapital later agreed to buy one half of the property, paying partly by offsetting the loans and partly in cash, while its joint venture partner, Plus Builders, bought the other half. Before the buyers could develop the property, they discovered that the title held by Consing's mother appeared to be spurious, the real title being in the names of other persons.

Unicapital demanded the return of the amounts paid, but the demands were ignored. Consing then filed a civil case in Pasig City for injunctive relief, claiming he had acted as a mere agent of his mother. On the same day, Unicapital filed a criminal complaint for estafa through falsification of public document, and later sued Consing in Makati City for the recovery of a sum of money and damages, an action predicated on fraud. An information for estafa through falsification was eventually filed in the Makati criminal case.

Consing moved to defer his arraignment, citing the pendency of the civil cases. The trial court suspended the criminal proceedings on the ground of a prejudicial question. The Court of Appeals first upheld the suspension, but later reversed itself, relying on an earlier ruling of the Supreme Court in a related case involving Plus Builders, which held that a civil action for damages based on fraud is an independent civil action that does not operate as a prejudicial question.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in reversing itself and in holding that no prejudicial question existed to warrant the suspension of the proceedings in the Makati criminal case.
• Whether or not the civil action for damages based on fraud, filed by Unicapital, operates as a prejudicial question that justifies suspending the criminal prosecution for estafa through falsification.
• Whether or not the Pasig civil case, which raised the issue of Consing's being a mere agent of his mother, raises a prejudicial question determinative of his guilt or innocence.

Applicable Provisions

Article 33 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.

This provision is the core of the ruling, because it makes the civil action for damages based on fraud proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, so that it cannot serve as a prejudicial question.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition is absolutely meritless. The Court of Appeals did not err in reversing itself, because the earlier ruling of the Supreme Court fully applied to Consing, given the similarity between his case with Plus Builders and his case with Unicapital.

On the second issue, the Court held that no prejudicial question existed. A perusal of Unicapital's complaint showed that the action was predicated on fraud, since it alleged that Consing and his mother had acted in a wanton, fraudulent, oppressive, or malevolent manner in offering as security and later as object of sale a property they did not own, and in foisting a spurious title on the public. As such, the action could proceed independently of the criminal case under Article 33 of the Civil Code. The Court stressed that a civil action based on defamation, fraud, and physical injuries may be independently instituted under Article 33, and does not operate as a prejudicial question that will justify the suspension of a criminal case. It was therefore not improper for the Court of Appeals to apply the earlier ruling, for although the civil cases involved different complainants, the actions were undeniably of similar mold, both being based on fraud and thus covered by Article 33.

On the third issue, the Court held that the Pasig civil case likewise raised no prejudicial question. Even if Consing were declared merely an agent of his mother in the transaction involving the sale of the questioned lot, he could not be adjudged free from criminal liability, because an agent or any person may be held liable for conspiring to falsify public documents. Hence, the determination of the issue in the Pasig civil case was irrelevant to his guilt or innocence in the criminal case for estafa through falsification.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate must retain these rules. First, an independent civil action based on fraud, brought under Article 33 of the Civil Code, does not raise a prejudicial question and cannot suspend a pending criminal prosecution for estafa through falsification. Second, there is no prejudicial question when the civil and criminal actions can, according to law, proceed independently of each other. Third, the test is relevance: the resolution of the civil action must be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case, and where the civil action is one for damages based on fraud, its outcome is irrelevant to criminal guilt. Fourth, the fact that the accused acted as a mere agent does not absolve him from criminal liability, because an agent may be held liable for conspiring to falsify public documents.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the amended decision of the Court of Appeals and ordered Consing to pay the costs of suit, so that the criminal case may proceed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: an independent civil action based on fraud under Article 33 of the Civil Code does not raise a prejudicial question and cannot stop a criminal prosecution for estafa through falsification. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of a prejudicial question and the independence of the civil action for fraud.