Dear PAO,

In 2018, my wife and I purchased a land located in the south. However, it was only in 2020 when we managed to initiate the transfer of the title to our names, despite having paid for the property in full upon purchase. During that time, we found out that the property had already been sold again by the same seller to another individual. Consequently, we immediately filed a civil case for the annulment of the second sale, asserting that the property had already been sold to us — which the seller firmly denied. Thereafter, the second buyer filed a criminal case for estafa against the seller by reason of double sale of the property. We have been closely monitoring the criminal case as we also want the seller to be held accountable for his wrongful actions. Just recently, the seller moved for the suspension of the criminal case on the ground that there was a prejudicial question pending resolution in the civil case that we filed against him. What does prejudicial question mean? Jacob

Dear Jacob, Jurisprudence defines prejudicial question 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 separate and distinct from the crime, but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused. (People of the Philippines vs. Rafael Jose Consing, Jr., G.R. No. 148193, January 16, 2003, Ponente: Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago) Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, laid down the following elements of a prejudicial question: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.

Simply stated, a prejudicial question exists in a situation wherein the guilt or innocence of an accused in a criminal case is primarily determined by the outcome of a previously instituted civil case which involved an issue similar or intimately connected to the former. In order to avoid two conflicting decisions, our law allows the filing of a petition for the suspension of the criminal prosecution based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question at any time during the proceeding, before the prosecution rests. (Section 6, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure) Article 316 (1) of the Revised Penal Code enumerated the essential elements of the crime of estafa, to wit: (1) that the thing be immovable, such as a parcel of land or a building; (2) that the offender who is not the owner of said property should represent that he is the owner thereof; (3) that the offender should have executed an act of ownership, e.g., selling, leasing, encumbering, or mortgaging the property; and (4) that the act be made to the prejudice of the owner or a third person.

In your case, the resolution of the issue of ownership over the parcel of land in the civil action for nullity of the second Deed of Sale that you filed against the seller primarily determines the guilt or innocence of the latter in the criminal case for estafa, particularly, whether the second (2nd) element of estafa — that the offender who is not the owner of said property should represent that he is the owner thereof, is present. Given that the ownership of the subject property is an essential element of the crime of estafa, it is only proper that the courts suspend the proceedings therefor until such time that the issue on ownership has been conclusively established.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

We appreciate your trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]