ARTURO ALANO v. CA

FACTS:

Petitioner Arturo Alano filed a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) denying petitioner's motion for the suspension of the criminal case for estafa filed against him. The criminal case, docketed as Criminal Case No. 90-84933, alleges that the petitioner defrauded Roberto Carlos by selling a parcel of land to another person despite already selling it to Carlos. Meanwhile, a civil case, docketed as Civil Case No. 55103, was filed by Carlos against the petitioner seeking the nullity of the sale and recovery of possession and damages. In the civil case, the petitioner contends that he never sold the property to Carlos and that his signature in the deed of sale was forged. The petitioner moves for the suspension of the criminal case on the ground that there is a prejudicial question pending in the civil case. However, the trial court denies the motion. The petitioner files a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Court of Appeals, but it is dismissed for lack of merit. Hence, this petition is filed.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the pendency of Civil Case No. 55103 is a prejudicial question justifying the suspension of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 90-84933.

  2. Whether the petitioner's admission in the stipulation of facts during the pre-trial of the criminal case constitutes a waiver of his defense of forgery in the civil case.

RULING:

  1. The Court ruled that the pendency of Civil Case No. 55103 is not a prejudicial question justifying the suspension of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 90-84933. The doctrine of prejudicial question applies when a civil action and a criminal action are both pending and there exists in the former an issue that must be resolved before the criminal action can proceed. In this case, the Court held that a criminal action for estafa, for the alleged double sale of property, is a prejudicial question to a civil action for nullity of the alleged deed of sale, wherein the defense of the alleged vendor is the forgery of his signature in the deed.

  2. However, the Court also held that the petitioner's admission in the stipulation of facts during the pre-trial of the criminal case constitutes a waiver of his defense of forgery in the civil case. The stipulation of facts in a criminal case is recognized as a judicial admission and is binding upon the parties. Thus, the petitioner's admission in the pre-trial order amounted to a waiver of his right to present evidence on his behalf. The Court emphasized that the right to present evidence may be waived expressly or impliedly. Since the suspension of the criminal case due to a prejudicial question is only a procedural matter, it can be waived by the prior acts of the accused.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The doctrine of prejudicial question arises when a civil action and a criminal action are both pending and there exists in the former an issue that must be resolved before the criminal action can proceed.

  • A stipulation of facts in a criminal case is recognized as a judicial admission and is binding upon the parties, resulting in the waiver of the right to present evidence on the admitted facts.

  • The right to present evidence may be waived expressly or impliedly, including the right to assert a defense in a civil case by virtue of an admission made in a criminal case.