Rojas v People DOCX

Title	Rojas v People
Author	Danna Ingaran
Pages	1
File Size	64.3 KB
File Type	DOCX
Total Downloads	658
Total Views	874

Summary

ROJAS V. PEOPLE May 31, 1974 | Fernando, J. | Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition | Prejudicial Question PETITIONER: Eufracio Rojas RESPONDENT: People of the Philippines, CFI Manila Judge SUMMARY: Rojas was charged with estafa. Subsequently, the offended party filed a civil action for the nullif...

Description

ROJAS V. PEOPLE May 31, 1974 " Fernando, J. " Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition " Prejudicial Question PETITIONER: Eufracio Rojas RESPONDENT: People of the Philippines, CFI Manila Judge SUMMARY: Rojas was charged with estafa. Subsequently, the offended party filed a civil action for the nullification of a contract it entered into with Rojas, grounded on misrepresentation. In a petition for certiorari and prohibition, petitioner seeks to nullify the orders of the respondent judge with regard to his arraignment and trial for estafa, because the involvement of a prejudicial question which allegedly arose upon the filing of the civil suit. Petition was dismissed. There is no prejudicial question. DOCTRINE: There is a prejudicial question only when the matter that has to be priorly decided by another authority is one the cognizance of which pertains to that authority and should not, under the circumstances, be passed upon by the court trying the criminal case FACTS: 1. In a petition for certiorari and prohibition, petitioner Rojas prayed that orders of the respondent judge, one for his arraignment and the other for his trial, be nullified. 2. CMS Estate filed five charges of estafa against Rojas, and the information was subsequently filed. Respondent judge ordered that arraignment and trial be held. Meanwhile, the offended party, CMS Estate, Inc., filed a civil action for the termination of the management contract it entered into with Rojas, on the ground that the latter executed a chattel mortgage on a tractor, when a prior chattel mortgage was still valid and subsisting. 2. Rojas pleaded that the arraignment for the criminal action against him for for violation of Article 319 of RPC (executing a new chattel mortgage on personal property in favor of another party without the consent of the previous mortgagee and duly noted in the record of the Register of Deeds) could not be set, alleging that he could no longer be tried pending the termination of the civil suit for the nullification of the contract, as a prejudicial question was involved. 3. Respondent Judge, in his reply, contended that the resolution of the liability of the defendant in the civil case on the cause of action based on the fraudulent misrepresentation that the chattel mortgage the defendant executed in favor of the said CMS Estate, Inc. 'free from all liens and encumbrances' will not determine the criminal liability of the accused in another criminal case for violation Art. 319 of RPC. Judge furthered that assuing arguendo that there is a prejudicial question involved, the fact remains that both the crime charged in the information in the criminal case and the cause of action in the civil case are based upon fraud, hence both the civil and criminal cases could proceed independently of the other pursuant to Article 33 of the new Civil Code which provides: 'In cases of defamation, fraud and physical injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.' ISSUE/S: WON the filing of duch civil action is a prejudicial question that needs to be resolved before the criminal action can be adjudicated - NO RULING: Petition dismissed RATIO: 1. The alleged prejudicial question is NOT one that is determinative of the criminal case, which is necessary to hold so that one of the court actions be stayed. In the case of Zapanta v. Montesa, the Court defined a prejudicial question as that 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…" and that it "must be determinative of the case before the court, and jurisdiction to try the same must be lodged in another court." 2. In another case, the Court held that even if the cause of action for the civil case be intimately related to the guilt or innocence of the accused on the criminal offense, resolution of the petition for such, affirmative or otherwise, does not and will not determine criminal responsibility in the criminal action. Thus there is no prejudicial question involved. 2. "There is a prejudicial question only when the matter that has to be priorly decided by another authority is one the cognizance of which pertains to that authority and should not, under the circumstances, be passed upon by the court trying the criminal case." 3. Even assuming that that both the civil and criminal case involve the same question and one must precede the other, it should be the civil case which should be suspended rather than the criminal, to await the result of the latter....