Francisco v. People

Facts:

Respondent filed a criminal complaint for perjury against the petitioner with the MTC QC. The said accused subscribe and swore to an Affidavit of Loss falsely alleging that he lost Owners Duplicate Certificate of TCT, which document was used in support of a Petition for Issuance of New Owners Duplicate Copy of Certificate of Title and filed with the RTC QC.

Petitioner filed a motion for suspension of proceedings based on a prejudicial question that the civil case must be resolved first before the criminal case may proceed since the issues in the said civil cases are similar or intimately related to the issues raised in the criminal action. MeTC denied the motion.

Petitioner filed MR but was denied.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the RoC with a prayer for Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction before RTC QC on the ground that MeTC Judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying his motion to suspend the proceedings in the criminal case. RTC dismissed the petition and denied the prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. There is no prejudicial question involved as to warrant the suspension of the criminal action to await the outcome of the civil cases. The civil cases are principally for determination whether or not a loan was obtained by petitioner and whether or not he executed the deed of real estate mortgage involving the property whereas the criminal case is for perjury which imputes upon petitioner the wrongful execution of an affidavit of loss to support his petition for issuance of a new owners duplicate copy. Whether or not he committed perjury is the issue in the criminal case which may be resolved independently of the civil cases. Note that the affidavit of loss was executed in support of the petition for issuance of a new owners duplicate copy.

Petitioner filed MR but was denied.

Petitioner filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari but it was dismissed.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the Orders of the judge denying the MR can only be reviewed by CA through appeal under Section 10, Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure;

2. Whether or not the judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of her jurisdiction in denying the Petition for Certiorari and petitioner’s subsequent MR on the ground of a prejudicial question.

Held:

No.

The procedural issue herein basically hinges on the proper remedy which petitioner should have availed himself of before the Court of Appeals: an ordinary appeal or a petition for certiorari. The appellate court did not err in dismissing petitioners Petition for Certiorari, pursuant to Rule 41, Section 2 of RoC.

The correct procedural recourse for petitioner was appeal, not only because RTC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners Petition for Certiorari in the civil case but also because RTCs Order of dismissal was a final order from which petitioners should have appealed in accordance with Section 2, Rule 41 of the RoC.

An order or a judgment is deemed final when it finally disposes of a pending action, so that nothing more can be done with it in the trial court. The order or judgment ends the litigation in the lower court. In contrary, interlocutory order does not dispose of the case completely, but leaves something to be done as regards the merits of the latter.

Certiorari generally lies only when there is no appeal nor any other plain, speedy or adequate remedy available to petitioners. Here, appeal was available. It was adequate to deal with any question whether of fact or of law, whether of error of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion or error of judgment which the trial court might have committed. But petitioners instead filed a special civil action for certiorari.

A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 lies only when there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Certiorari cannot be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy, certiorari not being a substitute for lost appeal.

Certiorari is not a substitute for lost appeal. The perfection of appeals in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and that the failure to perfect an appeal renders the decision of the trial court final and executory. This rule is founded upon the principle that the right to appeal is not part of due process of law but is a mere statutory privilege to be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law.

A party cannot substitute the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 for the remedy of appeal.

The rationale behind the principle of suspending a criminal case in view of a prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting decisions.

A prejudicial question is defined 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 distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused.

For a prejudicial question in a civil case to suspend criminal action, it must appear not only that said case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.

Thus, for a civil action to be considered prejudicial to a criminal case as to cause the suspension of the criminal proceedings until the final resolution of the civil case, the following requisites must be present: (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 try said question must be lodged in another tribunal.

If the resolution of the issue in the civil action will not determine the criminal responsibility of the accused in the criminal action based on the same facts, or there is no necessity that the civil case be determined first before taking up the criminal case, therefore, the civil case does not involve a prejudicial question. Neither is there a prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal action can, according to law, proceed independently of each other.