Prejudicial questions (Article 36, Civil Code)

Prejudicial questions, which must be decided before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed, shall be governed by rules of court which the Supreme Court shall promulgate and which shall not be in conflict with the provisions of [the Civil] Code. (Article 36, Civil Code)

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. (Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure) The following requisites must be present 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: (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. (G.R. No. 186597, June 17, 2015)

Prejudicial question has been defined to be that which arises in a case, the resolution of which (question) is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in said case, and the cognizance of which pertains to another Tribunal. (Enciclopedia Juridica Española, p. 228) The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court; this is its first element. Jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal; this is the second element. In an action for bigamy for example, if the accused claims that the first marriage is null and void and the right to decide such validity is vested in another tribunal, the civil action for nullity must be first decided before the action for bigamy can proceed, hence, the validity of the first marriage is a prejudicial question. (People vs. Aragon, 94 Phil., 357; 50 Off. Gaz., No. 10, 4863)

Spanish jurisprudence, from which the principle of prejudicial question has been taken, requires that the essential element determinative of the criminal action must be cognizable by another court. This requirement of a different court is demanded in Spanish jurisprudence because Spanish courts are divided according to their jurisdictions, some courts being exclusively of civil jurisdiction, others of criminal jurisdiction. In the Philippines, where our courts are vested with both civil and criminal jurisdiction, the principle of prejudicial question is to be applied even if there is only one court before which the civil action and the criminal action are to be litigated. (Merced v. Diez, G.R. No. L-15315, August 26, 1960)

For a civil case to be considered prejudicial to a criminal action as to cause the suspension of the latter pending the final determination of the former, it must appear not only that the civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution would be based, but also that in the resolution of the issues raised in said civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. (Mendiola, et al. v. Macadaeg, et al., L-16874, Feb. 27, 1961)

In the case of People v. Adelo Aragon (L-5930, Feb. 17, 1954), the Supreme Court defined it as one which arises in a case, the resolution of which question is a logical antecedent of the issues involved in said case and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court; this is the first element. Jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal; this is the second element. (Carlos v. CA, 79 SCAD 582 [1997])