IN BANC

GR No. L-47006 June 26, 1940

PEDRO DE LEON, appellant, vs. ALEJO MABANAG, Prosecutor of the City of Manila, appealed.

D. Pedro de Leon in his own representation.

The Prosecutor appealed in his own representation.

IMPERIAL, J .: chanrobles virtual law library

The purpose of this prohibitory injunction is to prevent the District Attorney of the City of Manila from continuing the
preliminary investigation against the Complainant for the crime of forgery of a public document and present a complaint
against the same appellant, for the aforementioned offense, before the Court of First Instance of the aforementioned
city. The request was originally filed with the Court of Appeals of which I certify and endorse the matter to this Supreme
Court as it corresponds to its knowledge and ruling. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In case RG No. 46153 of this Court, entitled "Pedro de Leon, plaintiff-appellant, against Felipe Juyco, defendant-appealed",
the main and decisive controversy was whether the document marked Exhibit V-1 was genuine or false, presented during
the trial held in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga by the appellant. After he had presented his argument, as
appellant, the defendant-appellee filed a motion in which I claim that the Exhibit V-1 that was attached to the file was false,
because it was not the same Exhibit V-1 that had been presented at trial , and requested that an investigation be carried out
by the Tribunal regarding said document and, in the event that it be false, that the prosecution of the persons found guilty be
ordered. The Court ruled that the motion would be resolved when the matter is decided on the merits. The defendant-
appellee asked for reconsideration of the resolution, but the Tribunal denied the petition stating that the parties abide by
what has already been resolved. While the matter was pending, the defendant-appellee appealed to the Prosecutor of the
City of Manila and filed a complaint against the appellant for falsifying the Exhibit V-1 document. The accused endorse the
complaint to his assistant Francisco B. Albert and this official began the preliminary investigation, hearing the evidence
presented by the defendant-appellee. After his presentation, the appellant requested the appellant to present his evidence,
to which this object and requested that he postpone the investigation until this Court resolved the alleged falsification of the
document. The respondent rejected the proposed postponement and wrote a letter to the appellant informing him that he
was convinced of the commission of the crime by the evidence presented by the defendant-appellee, and that if the
appellant did not present his evidence, it would be presented against the defendant. the Court of First Instance of Manila the
complaint for falsification of public document. It was then that the appellant went to the Court of Appeals and presented the
appeal that is being considered.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In his answer, the respondent alleges that the question of whether the Exhibit V-1 is genuine or false is not prejudicial, nor
the pending of the matter before this Tribunal is an obstacle to the prosecution of the appellant for the crime of forgery of
said document. He further argues that the power that the law has conferred on him to prosecute crimes can not be
contracted or suspended by the courts. We declare that the theory that sustains the respondent, as Prosecutor of the City of
Manila, is erroneous. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

According to Article 3. , Chapter II, First Title, First Book, of the Spanish Criminal Procedure Law, which still applies in this
jurisdiction with a supplementary character and whose provisions are applied as a principle of law in everything that is not
opposes or contradicts any positive provision of any law (Almeida Chan Tanco et al., Abaroa, 8 Jur. Fil., 174, Berbari contra
Concepcion et al., 40 Jur. Fil., 881) are prejudicial to the proposed civil and administrative issues on the occasion of the
facts prosecuted in a criminal case. The Spanish Legal Encyclopedia, volume X, p. 228, edition of Seix, defines the
question, prejudicial saying that 'chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Generally speaking, the power of the Prosecutor and his duty to prosecute crimes should not be controlled and not curtailed
by the courts; but there is no doubt that this faculty can be regulated so that it is not abused. When a member of the Public
Prosecutor's Office deviates from the law and hinders the proper administration of justice by prosecuting a person for facts
constituting a crime that are sub judice and from which an administrative pre-judicial question is proposed, it is the duty of
the courts to call him the attention and force him to suspend all criminal action until the administrative preliminary ruling
question has finally been decided. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The preliminary investigation that is being practiced by one of his assistants is the procedure prior to the criminal action for
the crime of falsification of the V-1 document, and the complaint with which he has threatened the appellant is what will
begin to criminal action. For this reason the appeal filed by the appellant is justified and it is appropriate for the appellant to
refrain from proceeding with the preliminary investigation and to file a complaint against the appellant for the crime of
forgery of the V-1 document, until this Court has definitively resolved the motion to reconsider the decision promulgated in
the civil case, motion for reconsideration that is pending until now. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The appeal is granted and the appellant is ordered to refrain from proceeding with the preliminary investigation and to file a
complaint against the appellant for the crime of falsification of the V-1 document, until this Court has finally resolved the
motion for reconsideration. that has been filed by the defendant-appealed in the case RG No. 46153, without costs. This is
how it is ordered.

Avance a, Pres., Diaz and Laurel, MM., Are satisfied.

Villa-Real and Concepcion, MM., Did not take part.

Separate Opinions

MORAN, J., dissident: chanrobles virtual law library

The general rule is that when there is a civil and a criminal question about the same crime or offense, the second must be
seen before the first one, for the reason that the forms of a criminal trial are the most appropriate for the investigation of a
crime. crime, and not a civil trial. This rule has, however, an exception, and it is the one that refers to a preliminary civil
question. A civil question is of prejudicial nature and must be resolved before a criminal question, when it is about a different
and separate fact of the crime, but so intimately linked to the one that determines the guilt or innocence of the accused. For
example, a civil action on the nullity of a second marriage is prejudicial and must be resolved before the criminal action for
bigamy. The same a civil action on title of property must be prosecuted before a criminal action for damage to that
property. The reason is that in these cases the forms of a civil process, and not those of a trial or criminal, are the most
purpose to prosecute, for example, the question of the validity or nullity of a marriage. But, in all these cases, the civil law
question refers to a dispute of a purely civil character but linked in such a way to the offense that is the criminal question,
which is determinant of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Of which it is deduced that when, as in the present case, the
civil question is about the same criminal act to which the criminal question refers, there is no pre-judicial question, and,
therefore, The general rule is that the criminal question must be resolved before the civil question. This under the
assumption that counterfeiting is a question necessarily involved in the civil matter, which is inaccurate. That question is
extraneous to the terms of the controversy that gave rise to the civil matter, which can be decided without needing to
declare whether or not there was such a falsification. The criminal process, therefore, can be initiated without the need to
suspend the ruling on the civil matter, since the two cases deal with different issues.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles
virtual law library

I will now proceed to demonstrate the truth of these conclusions. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
The Spanish Criminal Prosecution Act, as the majority very well says, still applies in this country, but with a supplementary
character, that is, in all cases in which it does not oppose any legal provision in force
here. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Article 114 of said Law of Prosecution is as follows:

ART. 114. Once a criminal trial has been initiated in order to find a crime or a fault, no suit may be filed regarding the same
act; suspending him if there were him, in the state in which he was found until a final sentence in the criminal
case. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

It will not be necessary for the exercise of the criminal action that preceded that of the civil action originated from the same
crime or lack. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The provisions of this article are understood without prejudice to the provisions of chap. 2. , title 1. of this book, regarding
the preliminary questions.

According to this provision, the criminal question must be resolved before the civil question, except what is established with
respect to the questions referred in chapter 2. , title 1. of the aforementioned Spanish
law. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In that title and chapter, the provision that contains a general definition of what a "pre-judicial question" is, is Article 4. ,
which reads as follows:

ART. 4. However, if the preliminary ruling question was determinative of guilt or innocence, the criminal court will suspend
the proceeding until the resolution of the corresponding one; but may set a time limit, not exceeding two months, for the
parties to go to the competent civil or administrative court or tribunal. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law
library

After the deadline without the interested party proving having used it, the criminal court will suspend the suspension and
continue the procedure. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The prosecution will be part of these trials.

Note from this legal provision that a civil question is considered prejudicial and, therefore, must be resolved before the guilt
or innocence of the accused.The Spanish Legal Encyclopedia says in part the following:

This rule of procedural law, by virtue of which the criminal matter must be resolved before the civil question, has an
exception for the civil questions of validity of a marriage or suppression of marital status (supposition of birth, concealment
or substitution of a child). These questions must always be deferred to the civil or ecclesiastical judge or court that must
understand them in one of those orders and until his decision, which will be the basis for the judgment of the criminal court,
can not do diligence of any kind in the investigation. of the crime that may have been committed. . . . (Volume X, page
229.) chanrobles virtual law library

We have said previously, that in a criminal proceeding the Court can declare if there has been a crime and to point out who
or who is responsible for it and impose the corresponding penalty, having to resolve as a logical antecedent of these
declarations some question of character civil or administrative: in a criminal proceeding for property crime it may happen
that the defendant denies the crime asserted that the thing belongs to him, or that what is said to have been deposited and
appropriated affirms the defendant having been given a loan or title of purchase, or that the industrial property whose fraud
is attributed to it is not such because the title that justifies it is null and ineffective. ( Id. Id., Page 229.)

The same Encyclopedia says in another part the following:

The general rule that attributes to the courts of criminal justice competence to resolve civil or administrative issues that
appear so intimately linked to the punishable act that they can not be separated from it, has an exception for the case that
the civil or administrative question, in addition to be intimately linked to the fact that is pursued, be determinative of the guilt
or innocence of the accused. It can happen that a complaint filed by usurpation of the object of a patent of invention or of an
industrial design, the defendant opposes the exemption that the patent title or the title of registration of the design is null for
lack of the objects in which consist of the circumstance of novelty indispensable for its validity. Here is a preliminary ruling
question of guilt or innocence, since the usurpation or fraud is based on a title whose validity contests the accused and one
a discussion. The criminal procedure would consist in this case, better than in finding out the existence of the crime and the
person of the offender, in the civil question of whether the title is valid or null and, consequently, whether or not the industrial
property that legally existed She is supposed to be disappointed. It is soon seen that dealing with civil or administrative
preliminary rulings that determine guilt or innocence, the competence to understand them must be given in favor of the
courts in charge of civil or administrative litigation, because the forms of procedure that must be applied are the most
appropriate for the prosecution of such issues and allow a wide range of contradiction and evidence that does not have the
criminal procedure established for a more concrete purpose such as the verification of a crime and the investigation of the
delinquent. . . . (Volume X, pages 230-231.)

From all the limited information it is clear that a preliminary question is a question of a purely civil character distinct and
separate from the criminal, but so linked to it, that determines the existence or nonexistence of one or more of the elements
of the accused crime; and that civil question should be resolved preferably in the civil court, because by its very nature,
such as the validity or nullity of a marriage, the forms of civil procedure are more appropriate for prosecution, than those of a
criminal trial. Another writer says the following:

If there is a relationship of privacy, it is necessary that the preliminary questions appear in such a way linked to the
punishable facts that their separation is rationally impossible; on the contrary, it is indispensable to establish the relationship
of determining cause, which are different and are different. completely separated these from that . In such a way that
relations of this kind are not conceived without the pre-judicial question being the result of events prior to the imputed crime
and without the fact that the assessment of these facts depends on circumstances completely unrelated to and independent
of the dilemma itself. Among the many examples that we could present in verification of this assertion, we will point out
some to clarify the matter further. An individual is accused of violating a deposit, and for his release denies the existence of
such a contract. The pre-judicial civil question regarding whether the deposit has been verified or not is a matter of fact
independent of the crime; it also refers to acts prior to the punishable act and is determinant of guilt or innocence, because
if the existence of the deposit is not proven, there can be no violation of this contract. (Reus, Law of Criminal Procedure,
Volume I, p. 9.)

But when, as in the present case, the civil question is the same criminal question, because both refer to the falsification of
the Exhibit V-1, there is no pre-judicial civil question. Actually, there is no civil question because although the criminal act is
alleged in civil litigation, it does not stop being a criminal matter. It is, therefore, a criminal issue raised in a civil suit, and in
such case the general rule established in Article 114 of the Spanish Criminal Procedure Law is applicable, by virtue of which
"the criminal trial was promoted in investigation of a crime or misdemeanor, it can not be followed suit (civil) on the same
fact; suspending him if there were him, in the state in which he is found until a final judgment is handed down in the criminal
case. "And this rule is complemented by article 514 of the Spanish Civil Procedure Act, which says:" In the case of that by
holding one of the parties the falsity of a document that may be of notary influence in the lawsuit, will initiate the criminal
action in discovery of the crime and its author, the lawsuit (civil) will be suspended in the state in which it is found until It falls
in the criminal case. " chanrobles virtual law library

Everything said is under the assumption that counterfeiting is a question necessarily involved in the civil matter. But, in truth,
that supposed falsification is an extraneous matter to the controversy that has given rise to civil case RG No. 46153. It is not
one of the issues raised by the parties in their pleadings, and has not been submitted to the lower court for its decision,
because the alleged falsification was committed after the decision was issued against which an appeal was filed against this
Superiority. It is therefore interesting to know how this Court will act on this forgery. If he has to act to find out if there has
really been a forgery and who is at fault, he can not do so in the exercise of his appealed jurisdiction, since, as I said, That
question has not been raised in the first instance. Nor can it do so in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, since it does not
have it, considering the matter as civil or criminal. I believe that the power of the Court is simply to find out whether the
document submitted to this Superiority is different or not from that presented at first instance, to order, if it is, that the
authentic document be presented to it, this is possible, or that secondary evidence of its content is provided, all with the
object that this Tribunal, in the exercise of its jurisdiction appealed, which is the only one that has, may decide the matter in
accordance with the evidence actually presented. in the lower court. I believe, therefore, that all the proceedings of the
Court, in relation to the alleged forgery,chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Perhaps the best procedure would be to return the civil matter to the lower court for it to determine whether the document
presented to it is different from the one that has been submitted to this Court, and to take the necessary steps to transmit to
this Court the authentic document. or secondary test of its content. But if this Court wants to make the investigation on its
own, it must do so in an attempt to avoid any declaration that, directly or indirectly, may constitute a ruling about the
existence or non-existence of the crime and who is to blame. And if he had no choice but to do so, his conclusions should
be considered as limited to the purposes of the civil matter and in relation to the reposition of the omitted evidence, and that
should not be considered conclusive and mandatory for the criminal court that has to understand the criminal process that is
to be instituted. It is neither fair for the public vindict, nor for the defendant, that a simple collateral incident opened in a
civilian branch only for the repositioning of a distracted test, is decided in a final and conclusive way on the question of the
innocence or guilt of a defendant. The Legal Encyclopedia cited above says:

In the matter of the preliminary rulings, it is a general principle of procedural law that the civil judge is absolutely
incompetent in criminal matters; so that when in civil or contentious-administrative litigation arises as a logical antecedent of
the ruling the question of the existence of a crime, the judge must suspend the procedure until the courts of the criminal
jurisdiction have been resolved on this question that is prejudicial of the civil or contentious-administrative lawsuit. . . . ( Id.
Id., Page 228.)

But Manresa says that, even if the crime exists, if the civil judgment can be based on other reasons, the ruling can be
issued without prejudice to the criminal process:

. . . Note that it can only be applied to the case in which the judgment of the lawsuit is to be based exclusively on the
existence of a crime, so that, even if this exist and there is to be a case ex officio, if the judgment can be based on other
reasons, the ruling should not be suspended. . . . (Law of Civil Procedure, Volume 2, page 121.)

It is, therefore, my conclusion that the alleged falsification is not a question that should be decided in civil case No. 46153
and with preference to the criminal process that the Prosecutor wishes to initiate. And the criminal process will not have the
effect of suspending the judgment of the civil matter, because in the decision of this it is not necessary to determine the
existence or inexistence of the crime to which that refers. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

I do not have to stop to refute the declaration of the majority that an investigation for bad practices against a lawyer is a pre-
judicial question that must precede a criminal process against that same lawyer, since such a declaration carries in itself its
own refutation, apart from that is in conflict with the constant practice followed by this Court. An administrative investigation
of this nature is based on other considerations and has different objectives from those of a criminal
process. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The other statement that the forgery should be considered a pre-judicialquestion because this sub-judice , is for me also
wrong. In the first place, that question is not sub judice , as I have already shown. And secondly, even if it were, that's not
why it's harmful. If so, civil action on a crime, can not be suspended in any case even if criminal proceedings are initiated,
because the crime is already sub judice . And this is contrary to Article 114 of the Spanish Criminal Procedure Act, which,
according to the majority, rules in the Philippines with a supplementary character. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles
virtual law library

For the reasons stated, I am of opinion that the criminal process can be followed without it having the effect of suspending
the judgment of the civil matter.