People v. Magestrado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Elena M. Librojo filed a criminal complaint for perjury against petitioner Francisco Magestrado. The complaint alleged that Magestrado willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously made an untruthful statement under oath before a notary public. Specifically, Magestrado allegedly falsely claimed in an Affidavit of Loss that he had lost Owner's Duplicate Certificate of TCT No. N-173163. This affidavit was used to support a Petition for Issuance of a New Owner's Duplicate Copy of the Title, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The prosecution contended that Magestrado knew the allegations in the affidavit and petition were false, as the property was mortgaged to Librojo as collateral for a substantial loan, and the title had been surrendered to her. Procedural History: The criminal complaint for perjury was filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, which recommended the filing of an information. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 90721 before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City, Branch 43. Magestrado moved to suspend proceedings based on a prejudicial question, citing two pending civil cases: one for recovery of a sum of money and another for cancellation of mortgage and delivery of title. The MeTC denied this motion, finding that the resolution of the civil cases was not determinative of guilt or innocence. After his motion for reconsideration was denied, Magestrado filed a Petition for Certiorari with the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 83, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the MeTC. The RTC dismissed this petition, ruling that no prejudicial question was involved and that the perjury case could be resolved independently. Magestrado's subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Petition: Aggrieved, Magestrado filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 63293, arguing that the RTC judge committed grave abuse of discretion. The CA dismissed this petition, holding that the proper remedy was an appeal under Rule 44 of the Revised Rules of Court, not a petition for certiorari. After the CA denied his motion for reconsideration, Magestrado filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court with the Supreme Court. He raises issues concerning the propriety of the CA's dismissal of his certiorari petition and whether the RTC judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying his claim of a prejudicial question.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioner's Petition for Certiorari on the ground that the proper remedy from the RTC's dismissal of his own Petition for Certiorari was an ordinary appeal under Rule 41, not another Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner's Petition for Certiorari, which sought to set aside the MeTC's denial of his motion to suspend proceedings based on a prejudicial question.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, dismissing the petition for lack of merit. The Court directed the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 43, to proceed with the hearing and trial on the merits of Criminal Case No. 90721 with expediency, while respecting the accused's right to due process.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy before the Court of Appeals: The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing petitioner's Petition for Certiorari. The order of the RTC-Branch 83 dismissing petitioner's Petition for Certiorari in Civil Case No. Q-99-39358 was a final order, as it finally disposed of the case and nothing more could be done with it in the RTC. Under Rule 41, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court, the correct procedural recourse for petitioner was an ordinary appeal by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from. Certiorari under Rule 65 lies only when there is no appeal, or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available. Since an appeal was available and adequate, the filing of a certiorari petition was improper. The Court reiterated that certiorari cannot be a substitute for a lost appeal, and the failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period renders the decision final and executory, raising a jurisdictional problem. On the existence of a prejudicial question: The Supreme Court found no prejudicial question that would warrant the suspension of the criminal case for perjury. The elements of a prejudicial question require that the civil action involves an issue intimately related to the issue in the criminal action, and that the resolution of the issue in the civil action determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. In this case, the civil cases (cancellation of mortgage and collection of sum of money) were primarily for the determination of whether a loan was obtained and a mortgage was executed. The criminal case, however, was for perjury, involving the determination of whether the petitioner knowingly and fraudulently executed a false affidavit of loss of TCT No. N-173163. The Court reasoned that regardless of the outcome of the civil cases, it would not establish the innocence or guilt of the petitioner in the perjury case. The purchase of the land or the execution of a mortgage would have no bearing on whether petitioner knowingly and fraudulently executed a false affidavit of loss. Therefore, the MeTC did not err in denying the motion for suspension, and the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in upholding that denial.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to assail a final order of a Regional Trial Court that dismisses a petition for certiorari. The correct remedy is an ordinary appeal under Rule 41. Furthermore, the pendency of civil cases for cancellation of mortgage and collection of sum of money does not constitute a prejudicial question that would warrant the suspension of a criminal case for perjury, as the resolution of the civil cases would not necessarily determine the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case.