ALEJANDRO RAS, PETITIONER, VS. HON. JAINAL D. RASUL, DISTRICT JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BASILAN, AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Ras versus Rasul

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition brought by Alejandro Ras against Judge Jainal Rasul of the Court of First Instance of Basilan and the People of the Philippines. Ras asks the Supreme Court to set aside the trial judge's order refusing to suspend the criminal proceedings against him on the ground of a prejudicial question. The case matters because it is the classic statement of when a pending civil action must first be resolved before a criminal prosecution may proceed — a doctrine every bar candidate must be able to state as a rule and apply to a double-sale fact pattern.

Procedural History

Luis Pichel filed a civil complaint before the Court of First Instance of Basilan against Alejandro Ras and Bienvenido Martin, seeking to nullify the deed of sale Ras had executed in favor of Martin and to declare valid an earlier deed of sale allegedly executed in Pichel's favor. While that civil case was being tried, the Provincial Fiscal of Basilan filed an information for estafa against Ras arising from the same alleged double sale. Ras moved to suspend the criminal proceedings, claiming a prejudicial question. The Provincial Fiscal opposed. In an order dated December 12, 1978, the respondent judge found no prejudicial question and denied the motion. Ras then brought this petition to the Supreme Court, which issued a temporary restraining order and ultimately granted the petition.

Facts

On or about April 27, 1978, Luis Pichel sued Alejandro Ras and Bienvenido Martin before the Court of First Instance of Basilan. Pichel prayed that the deed of sale Ras had executed in favor of Martin be nullified, and that an earlier deed of sale allegedly executed in Pichel's favor be declared valid.

In their answer, the Ras spouses alleged that they never sold the property to Pichel, and that the signatures appearing on the deed of sale in Pichel's favor were forgeries. On that theory, the deed Pichel sought to enforce was fictitious and inexistent.

While the civil case was being tried, the Provincial Fiscal filed an information for estafa against Ras, arising from the same alleged double sale that was the subject of Pichel's complaint. Ras moved to suspend the criminal case, arguing that the facts and issues in the two cases were the same, and that the resolution of the civil case would necessarily determine his guilt or innocence. The fiscal opposed, and the respondent judge denied the motion, finding no prejudicial question. Hence the petition.

Issues

• Whether or not a prejudicial question exists in the criminal case for estafa by reason of the pendency of the civil case for nullity of the deeds of sale.
• Whether or not the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in denying the motion to suspend the criminal proceedings.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a specific codal provision; it states the governing doctrine, which the Court defines as follows:

A prejudicial question is defined as that which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal.

This definition supplies the test the Court applies to decide whether the criminal case must yield to the civil case.

The Court also lays down the requisites for suspension in these words:

For a civil case to be considered prejudicial to a criminal action as to cause the suspension of the criminal action pending the determination of the civil, it must appear not only that the civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution is based, but also that the resolution of the issues raised in said civil action would be necessarily determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused.

These requisites are the measure against which Ras's motion must be tested.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that a prejudicial question does exist. The petitioner's defense in the civil case — that the prior deed of sale in Pichel's favor is null and forged — rests on the very same facts that would necessarily determine his guilt or innocence in the criminal case. If the first sale in favor of Pichel is void or fictitious, then there is no double sale, and the petitioner is innocent of the offense charged.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondent judge erred in denying the motion. A conviction in the criminal case, if it were allowed to proceed ahead, would be a gross injustice and would have to be set aside if it were finally decided in the civil action that the alleged prior deed of sale was a forgery and spurious. The Court noted the concurrence of the Solicitor General, who observed that the question of nullity of the sale is distinct and separate from the crime of estafa, but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the petitioner in the criminal action.

Doctrine

A prejudicial question is one whose resolution is a logical antecedent of the issue in the case before the court, and whose cognizance pertains to another tribunal. It must be determinative of the case before the court, and jurisdiction to resolve it must be lodged in another court or tribunal.

For a civil case to be prejudicial to a criminal action, two requisites must concur: first, the civil case must involve the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution is based; and second, the resolution of the issues in the civil action must be necessarily determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Where the accused's civil defense of forgery or nullity of the prior sale, if sustained, would negate the double sale on which the estafa charge rests, the criminal action must be suspended until the civil case is finally decided.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the order of December 12, 1978 was set aside, the temporary restraining order was made permanent, and the respondent judge was enjoined from proceeding with the arraignment and trial of the criminal case until the civil case shall have been finally decided and terminated adversely against the petitioner.

Remember This

Memorize the twin requisites: same facts, and the civil resolution necessarily determines guilt or innocence. Examiners use this case to test whether a pending civil suit for nullity or forgery of a deed of sale suspends a criminal prosecution for estafa arising from the same alleged double sale.