View full case

RAFAEL JOSE CONSING v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute between petitioner Rafael Consing, Jr. and Unicapital Inc. (Unicapital) over loans obtained by Consing and his mother, Cecilia de la Cruz, totaling P18,000,000. The loans were secured by a real estate mortgage on a property registered under de la Cruz's name. Unicapital discovered that the title to the property was spurious and demanded the return of the amount paid to Consing and de la Cruz.

Consing filed a civil case for injunctive relief in the Pasig City RTC to prevent Unicapital from collecting the payment. Unicapital also initiated a criminal complaint for estafa through falsification against Consing and de la Cruz in the Makati City Prosecutor's Office. Unicapital then sued Consing for the recovery of money and damages in the Makati City RTC.

Consing moved to defer his arraignment in the criminal case, arguing the existence of a prejudicial question due to the pending civil cases in Pasig and Makati. The RTC granted the motion, suspending the proceedings in the criminal case. The State appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the independent civil action raised by Consing did not raise a prejudicial question and should not stop the criminal case.

In another case, Consing filed a motion to defer the arraignment in the criminal case filed against him and de la Cruz in Imus, Cavite RTC, based on the existence of two civil cases - one in Pasig for injunctive relief and another in Manila for damages and attachment. The RTC denied Consing's motion, prompting him to file a petition for certiorari in the CA to enjoin his arraignment. The CA granted his petition and enjoined the RTC from proceeding with the arraignment and trial until the civil cases have been decided.

The State appealed the CA's decision to the Supreme Court, which ultimately reversed it. The Supreme Court held that there is no prejudicial question as the issues in the civil cases are irrelevant to the criminal case. Furthermore, the civil and criminal actions can proceed independently of each other.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the resolution of the civil case for damages will determine the criminal liability of the respondent.

  2. Whether there is a prejudicial question between the civil and criminal case.

  3. Whether the existence of a prejudicial question justified the suspension of the proceedings in the Makati criminal case.

  4. Whether the criminal case should be suspended pending the resolution of the civil case.

RULING:

  1. The resolution of the civil case for damages will not determine the criminal liability of the respondent. Even if the plaintiff is entitled to the return of the purchase price plus damages, it does not automatically mean that the respondent should be held guilty of estafa through falsification of a public document. The determination of the respondent's guilt in the criminal case will depend on other evidence and the application of penal laws.

  2. There is no prejudicial question between the civil and criminal case. Under Rule 111, Section 3 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, the independent civil action may proceed independently of the criminal action and only requires a preponderance of evidence. The offended party cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action. Thus, the civil and criminal actions can proceed independently of each other.

  3. The Court held that the existence of a prejudicial question did not justify the suspension of the proceedings in the Makati criminal case. The Court ruled that the Makati civil case was an independent civil action based on fraud, which could proceed separately from the criminal case. The Court held that a civil action based on defamation, fraud, and physical injuries could be independently instituted under Article 33 of the Civil Code and does not operate as a prejudicial question. Therefore, the Court affirmed the reversal of the lower court's orders and ordered the respondent judge to proceed with the hearing of the criminal case with dispatch.

  4. No, the criminal case should not be suspended pending the resolution of the civil case. The issue involved in the civil case is irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of the respondent in the criminal case. Even if the respondent is declared to be merely an agent of his mother, he can still be held liable for conspiring to falsify public documents. Therefore, the determination of the issue in the civil case is not a prejudicial question for the criminal case.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The resolution of a civil case will not necessarily absolve the accused of criminal liability if other evidence establishes guilt under penal laws.

  • The civil and criminal actions can proceed independently of each other, except when the offended party is trying to recover damages for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action.

  • A civil action based on defamation, fraud, and physical injuries may be independently instituted under Article 33 of the Civil Code and does not operate as a prejudicial question that warrants the suspension of a criminal case.

  • A civil action that is an independent civil action, which can proceed separately from the criminal case, does not justify the suspension of the criminal case.

  • The issue involved in a civil case is irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused in a criminal case if the accused can still be held liable for other crimes.

  • An agent or any person may be held liable for conspiring to falsify public documents, even if they are acting as an agent of another person.