Fortich-Celdran vs. Celdran

A prejudicial question exists when the issue in a pending civil case is determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in a criminal prosecution; the criminal action must be suspended until the civil question is resolved. The authenticity of the motion to withdraw, disputed in the civil appeal, was a logical antecedent to the falsification charge, and jurisdiction to resolve that question lay in the appellate court hearing the civil case.

The controversy arose from a partition of the estate of Pedro Celdran among his children by two marriages. Heirs of the first marriage, including respondent Ignacio Celdran, filed a civil action in the Cebu Court of First Instance to annul an extrajudicial partition. After a motion to withdraw as plaintiff signed “Ignacio Celdran” was filed, the trial court ruled that Ignacio had ratified the partition by signing the motion after receiving partial consideration. Ignacio appealed to the Court of Appeals, contesting the authenticity of his signature. Subsequently, at his instance, an information for falsification of the same motion to withdraw was filed against his half-siblings and two others. Ignacio moved to suspend the criminal case on the ground that the civil appeal presented a prejudicial question. The trial court denied the motion, finding the forgery issue not involved in the civil case. Ignacio then secured a writ of certiorari from the Court of Appeals, which ordered suspension of the criminal proceedings. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Civil Action and the Motion to Withdraw: On February 3, 1954, the children of the late Pedro Celdran by his first marriage — Jose, Francisco, Pedro Jr., and Ignacio, all surnamed Abuton-Celdran — together with the administratrix of Francisco Celdran’s estate, filed Civil Case No. 3397-R in the Court of First Instance of Cebu for annulment of an extrajudicial partition and for accounting. Named as defendants were Pablo Celdran (a child of the first marriage who refused to join as plaintiff), Josefa Vda. de Celdran (the surviving spouse from the second marriage), and the children of the second marriage: Manuel, Antonio, Pedro III, Jesus, Vicente, and Miguel, all surnamed Fortich-Celdran.

On May 24, 1957, a motion to withdraw as co-plaintiff, signed “Ignacio Celdran,” was filed and marked as Exhibit B-Josefa. An amended complaint later impleaded Ignacio Celdran as a defendant, and he filed an answer with counterclaim and cross-claim.

Trial Court’s Findings and the Appeal: After trial, the Cebu CFI found that Ignacio Celdran had ratified the extrajudicial partition by receiving P10,000 (of an agreed P20,000) and two residential lots in exchange for signing the motion to withdraw. The court accordingly declared the partition valid in a decision dated July 19, 1961, later amended to order the Fortich-Celdrans to pay the balance and deliver the lots.

Ignacio Celdran appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 30499-R), disputing, among other things, the finding that he had signed the motion to withdraw. He maintained that his signature on Exhibit B-Josefa was a forgery — a position he had earlier sought to advance by having the document examined by the Cebu City Police Department, who opined that the signature was falsified, and by moving unsuccessfully for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence.

The Criminal Prosecution for Falsification: At the instance of Ignacio Celdran, the City Fiscal of Ozamis filed on March 22, 1963 an information for falsification of a public document (Exhibit B-Josefa, the motion to withdraw) in Criminal Case No. 5719 before the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental. The accused were Pedro III, Antonio, Manuel, Vicente, Miguel, and Jesus, all surnamed Celdran, together with Santiago Catane (as subscribing officer) and Abelardo Cecilio (as the person who filed the motion).

Motion to Suspend and the Denial: On December 12, 1962, before the criminal case was tried, Ignacio Celdran, as private complainant, moved to suspend the criminal proceedings on the ground of prejudicial question, citing the pending civil appeal in which the authenticity of the same document was in issue. The CFI of Misamis Occidental denied the motion on January 28, 1963, ruling that the alleged forgery was not an issue in the civil case.

Certiorari in the Court of Appeals: Ignacio Celdran challenged the denial via a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction filed on February 21, 1963 in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 31909-R). The Court of Appeals granted the petition on February 18, 1964, holding that a prejudicial question existed and ordering the suspension of Criminal Case No. 5719 until the civil appeal (CA-G.R. No. 30499-R) was finally decided.

In the meantime, an administrative complaint filed by Ignacio Celdran in the Supreme Court against Santiago Catane, based on the same alleged falsification, had been held in abeyance by a minute resolution dated April 27, 1962, specifically because the genuineness of the document was necessarily involved in the pending civil case.

• No Prejudicial Question: Petitioners contended that the pendency of the civil appeal did not present a prejudicial question. They argued that the issue of whether Ignacio Celdran’s signature on the motion to withdraw was forged was not a logical antecedent to the criminal prosecution for falsification, because the civil case concerned the ratification of an extrajudicial partition, not the criminal liability for the alleged forgery.

• Lack of Standing of Private Complainant: Petitioners maintained that the motion to suspend the criminal action, having been filed by the private offended party rather than the public prosecutor, was improper. They argued that control of the prosecution rested solely with the fiscal, who had not initiated the suspension.

• Propriety of Certiorari: Petitioners asserted that the petition for certiorari was premature because no motion for reconsideration of the denial order had been filed in the trial court, and that appeal, not certiorari, was the appropriate remedy.

• Existence of Prejudicial Question: Respondent Ignacio Celdran argued that the authenticity of the motion to withdraw (Exh. B-Josefa) was squarely raised as an issue in the civil appeal. Since the resolution of that authenticity would determine whether he had ratified the partition, and since the criminal charge for falsification was predicated on the same document’s being forged, the civil case posed a prejudicial question that must be decided before the criminal prosecution could proceed. He invoked the rule that a question whose determination is a logical antecedent to the guilt of the accused is a prejudicial question.

• Right to Move for Suspension: Respondent maintained that under Section 5, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, any party could petition for the suspension of a criminal action based on a prejudicial question before or during trial. His motion was filed before trial and with the acquiescence of the fiscal, who did not object to its filing.

• Availability of Certiorari: Respondent contended that the denial of the motion to suspend was an interlocutory order not appealable, and that the trial court had acted with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to recognize the prejudicial question. He argued that certiorari was therefore the proper and timely remedy, and that a motion for reconsideration was unnecessary because the issue had been squarely presented and denied.

• Prejudicial Question: Whether the pendency of the civil appeal in CA-G.R. No. 30499-R — which involved the determination of the authenticity of the motion to withdraw — constituted a prejudicial question requiring the suspension of Criminal Case No. 5719 for falsification of that same document.

• Right of Private Complainant to Move for Suspension: Whether the private offended party, Ignacio Celdran, could validly move to suspend the criminal prosecution on the ground of prejudicial question, given that the fiscal did not object.

• Propriety of Certiorari: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly entertained the petition for certiorari against the interlocutory order denying suspension, despite the absence of a prior motion for reconsideration.

• Prejudicial Question: The criminal prosecution was ordered suspended because the civil appeal presented a prejudicial question. The authenticity of the motion to withdraw (Exh. B-Josefa) was among the issues involved in the civil case where the principal question was whether Ignacio Celdran had ratified the extrajudicial partition. The trial court in the civil case had based its finding of ratification in part on its conclusion that Ignacio Celdran signed the motion; on appeal, Ignacio Celdran squarely assailed the genuineness of that signature. The resolution of that point in the civil action — whether the motion was authentic or a forgery — was a logical antecedent to the determination of guilt or innocence in the falsification case. A prejudicial question was defined as one that arises in a case, the resolution of which is a logical antecedent to the issue in another proceeding and whose cognizance is lodged in another tribunal; here, jurisdiction to pass upon the authenticity of the document lay with the appellate court in the civil case. Accordingly, the criminal action could not proceed until the civil question was finally decided. The characterization of the forgery issue as not being involved in the civil case was erroneous; the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that a prejudicial question existed.

• Right of Private Complainant to Move for Suspension: The motion to suspend was properly filed by the private complainant. Section 5, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court permits “any party” to present a petition for suspension of the criminal action by reason of a prejudicial question before or during trial. The fiscal, who had direction and control of the prosecution, did not object to the filing of the motion, and therefore the private offended party’s initiative was valid.

• Propriety of Certiorari: The denial of the motion to suspend was attended with grave abuse of discretion, rendering certiorari proper. The issue of prejudicial question having been squarely and definitely presented before the trial court, a motion for reconsideration was not necessary, as it would merely reiterate the same points. Moreover, the order of denial was interlocutory and thus not appealable; certiorari was the plain and adequate remedy.

• Prejudicial Question — A prejudicial question is one that 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 is determinative of the case before the court, yet jurisdiction to pass upon it is lodged in another tribunal. In criminal proceedings, if a civil action raises an issue whose determination will necessarily resolve the guilt or innocence of the accused, the criminal prosecution must be suspended until that issue is finally decided. Here, the authenticity of the motion to withdraw was the very point on which the falsification charge hinged, and the resolution of that authenticity in the civil appeal was a logical antecedent to the criminal case, thus giving rise to a prejudicial question.

• Suspension by Reason of Prejudicial Question under Rule 111 — Section 5, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for suspension of a criminal action based on the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil case may be presented by any party before or during trial. The private complainant, with the fiscal’s non-objection, may file such a motion. The provision does not limit the right to the prosecuting officer alone.

• “A pre-judicial question is one that 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; that is, it is determinative of the case before the court and jurisdiction to pass upon the same is lodged in another tribunal.”

• “Since ratification is principal issue in the civil action pending appeal in the Court of Appeals, and the falsification or genuineness of the motion to withdraw — presented and marked as evidence in said civil case — is among the questions involved in said issue, it follows that the civil action poses a pre-judicial question to the criminal prosecution for alleged falsification of the same document, the motion to withdraw (Exh. B-Josefa).”

• “Denial of the motion to suspend the prosecution was therefore attended with grave abuse of discretion; and the issue having been squarely and definitely presented before the trial court, a motion for reconsideration, which would but raise the same points, was not necessary. Neither was appeal the remedy available, since the order denying suspension is interlocutory and thus not yet appealable.”

• People v. Aragon, 94 Phil. 357; Merced v. Diaz, L-15315, Aug. 26, 1960; Mendiola v. Macadaeg, L-16874, Feb. 27, 1961; Zapanta v. Montesa, L-14534, Feb. 28, 1962 — Cited collectively as controlling precedents that define a prejudicial question as one whose resolution is a logical antecedent to the issue in another case and whose cognizance belongs to another tribunal. Followed.

• Section 5, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court — “Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. — A petition for the suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a pre-judicial question in a civil case, may only be presented by any party before or during the trial of the criminal action.” Applied to uphold the private complainant’s motion to suspend, filed before trial and without objection from the fiscal.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Castro, JJ.