QUIAMBAO v.

OSORIO
GR No. L-48157 March 16, 1988
FACTS:
Ejectment Case. Private Respondent claims to own the land and Petitioner through force,
intimidation, strategy and stealth entered their property. Petitioner raised in his affirmative
defense and as a ground for dismissing the case that an administrative case is pending before
the Office of Land Authority between the same parties and involving the same piece of land.
In the administrative case Petitioner dispute the right of the Private Respondent over the
property for default in payments for the purchase of the lot. Petitioner argue that the
administrative case was determinative of private respondents right toe eject petitioner from
the from the lot in question; hence a prejudicial question which bars a judicial action until
after its termination.
The Municipal Court denied the Motion to Dismiss contained in the Petitioners affirmative
defenses. Petitioner appealed to the Court of First Instance. Private Respondent filed a
Motion to Dismiss arguing there is no Prejudicial Question.
The Land Authority filed and Urgent Motion for Leave to Intervene in the CFI praying that
the Petition for Certiorari be granted and the ejectment case be dismissed and the Office of
the Land Authority be allowed to decide the matter exclusively.
The Petition was denied by the CFI finding the issue involved in the ejectment case to be one
of prior possession and Motion to Intervene was denied for lack of merit.
Petitioner and Intervenor raised the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATIVE CASE BETWEEN THE PRIVATE PARTIES
INVOLVING THE LOT SUBJECT MATTER OF THE EJECTMENT CASE CONSTITUTES A
PREJUDICIAL QUESTION WHICH WOULD OPERATE AS A BAR TO SAID EJECTMENT
CASE.
DECISION: PETITION IS GRANTED. CIVIL CASE No. 2526 of the then MUNICIPAL
COURT OF MALABON RIZAL IS HEREBY ORDERED DISMISSED. No Costs.

Technically, No prejudicial question.

A prejudicial question is understood in law to be that which arises in a case the resolution of
which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in said case and the cognizance of which
pertains to another tribunal. (Zapata v. Montessa 4 SCRA 510 (1962); Pp v. Aragon, 500 G.
No. 10, 4863) The Doctrine of Prejudicial Question comes into play generally in a situation
where civil and criminal actions are pending and the issues involved in both cases are similar
or so closely related that an issue must be pre-emptively resolved in the civil case before the
criminal action can proceed. Thus, the existence of a prejudicial question in a civil case is
alleged in the criminal case to cause the suspension of the latter pending final determination
of the former.

JULIANA P. YAP, Petitioner,

G.R.
No. 101236
vs.
January 30, 1992
MATIN PARAS AND ALFREDO D. BARCELONA, SR.,
Judge of the 3rd MTC of Glan Malapatan, South Cotabato,
Respondent.

According to Yap, Paras sold IN 1971 to her his share in the intestate estate
for P300.00. The sale was evidenced by a private document. Nineteen years
later, (in 1990), Paras sold the same property to Santiago Saya-ang for
P5,000.00. This was evidenced by a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale.
When Yap learned of the second sale, she filed a complaint for estafa
against Paras and Saya-ang with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of
General Santos City. On the same date, she filed a complaint for the
nullification of the said sale with the Regional Trial Court of General Santos
City.
After investigation, the Provincial Prosecutor instituted a criminal
complaint for estafa against Paras with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of
Glan-Malapatan, South Cotabato, presided by Judge Alfredo D. Barcelona, Sr.,
who dismissed the criminal case on the ground that the issue in the civil case
is prejudicial to the criminal case for estafa.
Issue: Is the Judge correct in motu proprio dismissing the criminal case?
Ruling: The judge is wrong. First, he should not have dismissed the criminal
case but only suspended it. Second, it was wrong for him to dismiss the
criminal case outright, since it requires a motion first from the proper party.
The rule provides: Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. A
petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a
prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the fiscal or
the court conducting the preliminary investigation. When the criminal action
has been filed in court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the
same criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests. Third, there is
actually no prejudicial question here.
Anent the issue of prejudicial question, the rule provides that:
Section 5, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended
provides:
Sec. 5. Elements of prejudicial question. The two (2) essential elements of
a prejudicial question are: (a) the civil action involves an issue similar or
intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and (b) the
resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may
proceed.
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. The prejudicial question

must be determinative of the case before the court but the jurisdiction to try
and resolve the question must be lodged in another court or tribunal. It is a
question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so
intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the
accused.
It was held that "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 action, 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".
Indeed, the civil case at bar does not involve the same facts upon which the
criminal action is based. There was no motion for suspension in the case at
bar; and no less importantly, the respondent judge had not been informed of
the defense Paras was raising in the civil action. Judge Barcelona could not
have ascertained then if the issue raised in the civil action would determine
the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case.