What is a prejudicial question?

● A prejudicial question is an issue involved in a civil case which is similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action, the resolution of which determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. (Sec. 7, Rule 111)

● 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. (Sabandal v. Tongco, G.R. No. 124498, October 5, 2001) 

●There is a prejudicial question when a civil action and a criminal action are both pending, and there exists in the civil action an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. (Pimentel v. Pimentel, G.R. No. 172060, September 13, 2010)

● Under the amendment to the Rules of Court, a prejudicial question is understood in law as that which must precede the criminal action and which requires a decision before a final judgment can be rendered in the criminal action with which said question is closely connected. The civil action must be instituted prior to the institution of the criminal action. If the criminal information was filed ahead of the complaint in the civil case, no prejudicial question exists (Torres v. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 153666, December 27,2002). 


What is the rationale behind the principle?

The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting decisions. (Dreamwork vs. Janiola, G.R. No. 184861, June 30, 2009)


Elements of prejudicial question

For a civil action to be considered prejudicial to a criminal case as to cause the suspension of the criminal proceedings until the final resolution of the civil, the following requisites must be present:
  1. the civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based; 
  2. in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined; and 
  3. jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal.

If both civil and criminal cases have similar issues or the issue in one is intimately related to the issues raised in the other, then a prejudicial question would likely exist, provided the other element or characteristic is satisfied. It must appear not only that the civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution would be based, but also that the resolution of the issues raised in the civil action would be necessarily determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused. If the resolution of the issue in the civil action will not determine the criminal responsibility of the accused in the criminal action based on the same facts, or there is no necessity that the civil case be determined first before taking up the criminal case, therefore, the civil case does not involve a prejudicial question. Neither is there a prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal action can, according to law, proceed independently of each other. (Sabandal v. Tongco)


Cases where prejudicial question does not apply:

1. Sabandal v. Tongco, G.R. No. 124498, October 5, 2001: PTI filed a case for violation of BP 22 against Sabandal. Three years after the Information was filed, Sabandal filed with the RTC a complaint against PTI for specific performance, recovery of overpayment and damages. Sabandal then filed a motion to suspend trial in the BP 22 cases against him based on a prejudicial question. Is there a prejudicial question to warrant the suspension of the trial of the BP 22 cases until after the resolution of the civil action for specific performance, recovery of overpayment, and damages?

Held: None. The pendency of a civil action for specific performance, overpayment, and damages did not pose a prejudicial question in the criminal cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. The issue in the criminal cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 is whether the accused knowingly issued worthless checks. The issue in the civil action for specific performance, overpayment, and damages is whether complainant Sabandal overpaid his obligations to Philippines Today, Inc. If, after trial in the civil case, petitioner is shown to have overpaid respondent, it does not follow that he cannot be held liable for the bouncing checks he issued, for the mere issuance of worthless checks with knowledge of the insufficiency of funds to support the checks is itself an offense. [Note: At the time the cases were filed, the Rule did not require a "previously" instituted civil action. This was only required in the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure]


2. Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis, G.R. No. 138509. July 31, 2000: Isagani was charged with Bigamy. Thereafter, he initiated a civil action for the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of his first marriage on the ground that this was celebrated without a marriage license. He then filed a motion to suspend the proceedings in the criminal case for bigamy invoking the pending civil case for nullity of the first marriage as a prejudicial question.

Held: In the light of Article 40 of the Family Code, respondent without first having obtained the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage, can not be said to have validly entered into the second marriage. Per current jurisprudence, a marriage though void still needs a judicial declaration of such fact before any party can marry again; otherwise the second marriage will also be void. The reason is that, without a judicial declaration of its nullity, the first marriage is presumed to be subsisting. In the case at bar, respondent was for all legal intents and purposes regarded as a married man at the time he contracted his second marriage with petitioner. Against this legal backdrop, any decision in the civil action for nullity would not erase the fact that respondent entered into a second marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage. Thus, a decision in the civil case is not essential to the determination of the criminal charge. It is, therefore, not a prejudicial question. As stated above, respondent cannot be permitted to use his own malfeasance to defeat the criminal action against him.


3. Te v. CA, G.R. No. 126446, Nov. 29, 2000: Arthur contracted another marriage while still married to Liliana. Hence, Liliana filed a bigamy case against Arthur and administrative case for the revocation of his and his mistress’ engineering license. The month before however, the Arthur had already filed an action to annul his marriage with the Liliana on the ground that he was merely forced to marry her. He also filed with the Board of Civil Engineering of the PRC (PRC Board), where the administrative case for the revocation of his engineering license was pending, a motion to suspend the proceedings therein in view of the pendency of the civil case for annulment of his marriage to Liliana and criminal case for bigamy. 

Held: (1) The outcome of the civil case for annulment of petitioners marriage to private respondent had no bearing upon the determination of petitioners innocence or guilt in the criminal case for bigamy, because all that is required for the charge of bigamy to prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at the time the second marriage is contracted. The prevailing rule is found in Article 40 of the Family Code, which  requires a prior judicial declaration of nullity before the void character of the first marriage maybe invoked. 

(2) Neither did the filing of said civil case for annulment necessitate the suspension of the administrative proceedings before the PRC Board. The concept of prejudicial question involves a civil and a criminal case. There is no prejudicial question where one case is administrative and the other is civil.


4. Beltran v. People, G.R. No. 137567 June 20, 2000: Meynardo filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage with Charmaine on the ground of psychological incapacity. Alleging that it was Meynardo who left the conjugal home and is now living with his paramour, Charmaine filed a complaint for concubinage against Meynardo and his paramour. Meynardo then filed a Motion to Defer Proceedings arguing that the pendency of the petition for nullity of his marriage with Charmaine poses a prejudicial question to the criminal case.

Held: The pendency of the case for declaration of nullity of petitioner's marriage is not a prejudicial question to the concubinage case. For a civil case to be considered prejudicial to a criminal action as to cause the suspension of the latter pending the final determination of the civil case, it must appear not only that the said civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution would be based, but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the aforesaid civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. With regard to petitioner's argument that he could be acquitted of the charge of concubinage should his marriage be declared null and void, suffice it to state that even a subsequent pronouncement that his marriage is void from the beginning is not a defense.


5. Yap v. Cabales, G.R. No. 159186, June 5,2009: Jesse issued checks to Evelyn which were later rediscounted by Orlando. When the checks were dishonored, Orlando filed civil actions to collect sums of money and criminal complaints for BP 22 against the Jesse. Jesse then filed separate motions to suspend proceedings on account of the existence of a prejudicial question. He argued that, in the pending civil cases, the issue as to whether Orlando is entitled to collect from him despite the lack of consideration, is an issue that is a logical antecedent to the criminal cases for violation of BP 22. For if the court rules that there is no valid consideration for the check's issuance, then it necessarily follows that he could not also be held liable for violation of B.P. Blg. 22.

Held: The issue in the criminal cases is whether the petitioner is guilty of violating B.P. Blg. 22, while in the civil case, it is whether the private respondents are entitled to collect from the petitioner the sum or the value of the checks that they have rediscounted from Evelyn. The resolution of the issue raised in the civil action is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal cases against him, and there is no necessity that the civil case be determined first before taking up the criminal cases. 

In the aforementioned civil actions, even if petitioner is declared not liable for the payment of the value of the checks and damages, he cannot be adjudged free from criminal liability for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. The mere issuance of worthless checks with knowledge of the insufficiency of funds to support the checks is in itself an offense.

In Jose v. Suarez, the prejudicial question under determination was whether the daily interest rate of 5% was void, such that the checks issued by respondents to cover said interest were likewise void for being contra bonos mores, and thus the cases for B.P. Blg. 22 will no longer prosper. In resolving the issue, We ruled that "whether or not the interest rate imposed by petitioners is eventually declared void for being contra bonos mores will not affect the outcome of the BP Blg. 22 cases because what will ultimately be penalized is the mere issuance of bouncing checks. In fact, the primordial question posed before the court hearing the B.P. Blg. 22 cases is whether the law has been breached; that is, if a bouncing check has been issued."


6. Magestrado v. People G.R. No. 148072, July 10, 2009: Librojo filed a criminal complaint for perjury against Magestrado for executing an affidavit of loss of a certificate of title of a parcel of land despite allegedly knowing that no loss of the certificate occurred because he had actually delivered the same to the Librojo as security for a loan. Magestrado, thereafter, filed a motion for suspension of the proceedings based on a prejudicial question alleging that a civil case filed against him by Librojo for recovery of a sum of money is pending before another court. He further alleged that another civil case is also pending before another branch of the same court filed by him against Librojo for cancellation of mortgage, delivery of title and damages. The issues in the said civil cases according to him are similar or intimately related to the issues raised in the criminal action. 

Held: A perusal of the allegations in the complaints show that the civil cases are principally for the determination of whether a loan was obtained by petitioner from private respondent and whether petitioner executed a real estate mortgage. On the other hand, the criminal case involves the determination of whether petitioner committed perjury in executing an affidavit of loss to support his request for issuance of a new owners duplicate copy of TCT No. N-173163.

It is evident that the civil cases and the criminal case can proceed independently of each other. Regardless of the outcome of the two civil cases, it will not establish the innocence or guilt of the petitioner in the criminal case for perjury. The purchase by petitioner of the land or his execution of a real estate mortgage will have no bearing whatsoever on whether petitioner knowingly and fraudulently executed a false affidavit of loss of TCT No. N-173163.


7. Pimentel v. Pimentel, G.R. No. 172060, September 13, 2010: Maria filed an action for frustrated parricide against Joselito. Several months after, the Joselito filed an action for the declaration of the nullity of their marriage. He then filed an urgent motion to suspend the proceedings in the court where the criminal case was pending on the ground of the existence of a prejudicial question. He asserted that since the relationship between the offender and the victim is a key element in parricide, the outcome of the civil case would have a bearing in the criminal case filed against him. The RTC denied the motion. Joselito went to the CA. The CA ruled that even if the marriage between petitioner and respondent would be declared void, it would be immaterial to the criminal case because prior to the declaration of nullity, the alleged acts constituting the crime of frustrated parricide had already been committed. The Court of Appeals ruled that all that is required for the charge of frustrated parricide is that at the time of the commission of the crime, the marriage is still subsisting. 

Held: The issue in the civil case for annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code is whether petitioner is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. The issue in parricide is whether the accused killed the victim. In this case, since petitioner was charged with frustrated parricide, the issue is whether he performed all the acts of execution which would have killed respondent as a consequence but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of petitioners will. At the time of the commission of the alleged crime, petitioner and respondent were married. The subsequent dissolution of their marriage, in case the petition in Civil Case No. 04-7392 is granted, will have no effect on the alleged crime that was committed at the time of the subsistence of the marriage. In short, even if the marriage between petitioner and respondent is annulled, petitioner could still be held criminally liable since at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, he was still married to respondent.