33. PEOPLE VS.
CONSING
Doctrine: An independent civil action based on fraud initiated by the defrauded party does not
raise a prejudicial question to stop the proceedings in a pending criminal prosecution of the
defendant for estafa through falsification. This is because the result the independent civil action
is irrelevant to the issue of guilt or innocence of the accused.
Facts:
Respondent Raphael Jose Consing Jr and his mother, Cecilia de la Cruz, represented to Plus
Builders, Inc. (PBI) that they are the tme and lawful owner of a parcel of land situated in Imus,
Cavite, and acquired it from Juanito Tan Teng (Juanito) and PO Willie Yu (PO). Relying on the
representations, PBI purchased the questioned lot.
Later, PBI discovered that respondent and his mother did not have a valid title over the subject
lot, and it was never sold to them by Juanito and PO. As a result thereof PBI was ousted from
the possession of the disputed lot. PBI demanded from respondent and his mother to return the
amount of P 13,369,641.79 alleged to have been initially paid but to no avail.
Respondent filed an action for Injunctive Relief against PBI and other defendants and sought a
declaration that he was merely an agent of his mother and therefore was not under any
obligation to PBI and other defendants on the various transactions.
Later, PBI filed against respondent and his mother a complaint for Damages and Attachment.
However, respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum shopping and the
pendency of the action for Injunctive Relief. A criminal case for estafa through falsification of
public document was filed against respondent and his mother. Respondent, however, filed a
motion to defer arraignment on the ground of prejudicial question.
ISSUES: Whether or not the pendency of an action for Injunctive Relief, and for Damages and
Attachment is a prejudicial question justifying in the suspension of the proceedings in the
criminal case – NO
HELD:
l. The issue here is whether or not respondent and his mother are liable to pay damages and to
return the amount paid by PBI for the purchase of the disputed lot.
The resolution of PBI’s right to be paid damages and the purchase price will not be
determinative of the culpability of the respondent in the criminal case for even if PBI is held
entitled to return the purchase price plus damages, it does not ipso facto follow that respondent
should be held guilty of estafa through falsification of public document. Stated differently, a
ruling of the court in the civil case that PBI should not be paid the purchase price plus damages
will not necessarily absolve respondent of liability in the criminal case where his guilt may still be
established under penal laws as determined by other evidence.
Furthermore, said action on account of the alleged fraud is an independent civil action under
Art. 33 of Civil Code. As such, it will not operate as a prejudicial question that will justify the
suspension of the criminal case at bar.
Wherefore, in view of all the foregoing, the instant petition is granted. The decision of the Court
of Appeals is reversed and set aside.
NOTES:
Prejudicial question is defined as that which arises in a case, the resolution of which is a logical
antecedent to the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another
tribunal. It 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.
Requisites of prejudicial question:
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 said question must be lodged in another tribunal.
