The two (2) essential elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.[11]

"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."[12]

"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, 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."[13]

If both civil and criminal cases have similar issues or the issue in one is intimately related to the issues raised in the other, then a prejudicial question would likely exist, provided the other element or characteristic is satisfied.[14] It must appear not only that the civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution would be based, but also that the resolution of the issues raised in the civil action would be necessarily determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[15] 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.[16] Neither is there a prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal action can, according to law, proceed independently of each other.[17]

Footnotes:

[11] Rule 111, Section 5, 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure; Dichaves v. Apalit, 333 SCRA 54, 57 [2000]; Ching v. Court of Appeals, 331 SCRA 16, 27 [2000].

[12] Donato v. Luna, 160 SCRA 441 [1988]; Quiambao v. Osorio, 158 SCRA 674 [1988]; Ras v. Rasul, 100 SCRA 125, 127 [1980].

[13] Prado v. People, 218 Phil. 573, 577 [1984].

[14] Alano v. Court of Appeals, 347 Phil. 549, 553 [1997], citing Benitez v. Concepcion, Jr., 112 Phil. 105 [1961].

[15] Te v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 126746, November 29, 2000; Beltran v. People, 334 SCRA 106, 111 [2000].

[16] Isip v. Gonzales, 148-A Phil. 212 [1971].

[17] Rojas v. People, 156 Phil. 224, 229 [1974].

A prejudicial question is one 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.[34] It generally comes into play in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action are both pending and there exists in the former an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting decisions.[35]

[34] Tuanda v. Sandiganbayan, 249 SCRA 342 (1995).

[35] Ibid.

It bears stressing that the rule on prejudicial questions was conceived to afford parties an expeditious and just disposition of cases.[26] Indeed, the amendment under the Rules on Criminal Procedure was designed to avert the deleterious practice foisted on the judicial system by unscrupulous parties to derail the placid flow of criminal cases. The Court has said that it will not countenance the misuse of the rules of procedures to frustrate or delay the delivery of justice.[27]

Even if we ignored petitioners’ procedural lapse and resolved their petition on the merits, we hold that Sandiganbayan did not abuse its discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in denying their omnibus motion for the suspension of the proceedings pending final judgment in Civil Case No. 7160. Section 6, Rule lll of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, reads:

Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. - A petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in court for trial, d shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests.

Sec. 7. Elements of prejudicial question. - The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.

Under the amendment, a prejudicial question is understood in law as that which must precede the criminal action and which requires a decision before a final judgment can be rendered in the criminal action with which said question is closely connected.[28] The civil action must be instituted prior to the institution of the criminal action. (DIONISIO L. TORRES and ENRICO M. ALVAREZ, petitioners, vs. HON. FRANCIS F. GARCHITORENA, HON. CATALINO R. CASTANEDA and HON. GREGORY S. ONG (in their capacities as Chairman and Members, respectively of the First Division of the Sandiganbayan) SUSANA REALTY, INC. and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents., G.R. No. 153666, 2002 Dec 27, 2nd Division)

The doctrine of prejudicial question comes into play generally only in a situation under Section 5, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure[30] where civil and criminal actions are pending and the issues involved in both cases are similar or so closely related that an issue must be preemptively resolved in the civil cases before the criminal action can proceed. (SECURITY BANK CORPORATION, Petitioner, versus JUDGE MANUEL D. VICTORIO, Regional Trial Court, Makati City, Branch 141; THE TRADE AND INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, and THE MAR FISHING COMPANY, INC., Respondents., G.R. No. 155099, 2005 Aug 31, 2nd Division)