Consing v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Rafael Jose-Consing, Jr. and his mother, Cecilia de la Cruz, obtained loans totaling P18,000,000.00 from Unicapital Inc. (Unicapital), secured by a real estate mortgage on a parcel of land registered under de la Cruz's name. Unicapital agreed to purchase half of the property for P21,221,500.00, with payment effected by offsetting the loan amounts and an additional cash payment. The other half was purchased by Plus Builders, Inc. (Plus Builders). It was later discovered that the title held by de la Cruz (TCT No. T-687599) was spurious, and the actual title belonged to Po Willie Yu and Juanito Tan Teng (TCT No. 114708). Unicapital demanded the return of P41,377,851.48, but de la Cruz and Consing ignored the demand. Procedural History: - July 22, 1999: Consing filed Civil Case No. 1759 (Pasig civil case) for injunctive relief, claiming he acted as a mere agent of his mother. - July 22, 1999: Unicapital filed a criminal complaint for estafa through falsification against Consing and de la Cruz. - August 6, 1999: Unicapital filed Civil Case No. 99-1418 (Makati civil case) for recovery of sum of money and damages, with application for preliminary attachment. - October 13, 1999: Plus Builders filed Civil Case No. 99-95381 (Manila civil case) for damages against Consing. - January 27, 2000: An information for estafa through falsification was filed against Consing and de la Cruz in Criminal Case No. 00-120 (Makati criminal case). - January 21, 2000: An information for estafa through falsification was filed against Consing and de la Cruz in the RTC in Imus, Cavite, docketed as Criminal Case No. 7668-00 (Cavite criminal case). - Consing moved to defer arraignment in the Makati criminal case (Criminal Case No. 00-120) based on the pendency of the Pasig and Makati civil cases, and later, CA-G.R. SP No. 63712. The RTC granted the motion and suspended proceedings. - The State assailed the RTC's orders via certiorari in the CA (C.A.-G.R. SP No. 71252). - The CA initially granted the State's petition, reversing the RTC's suspension order, but later amended its decision to uphold the suspension, citing its own ruling in CA-G.R. SP No. 63712. - In G.R. No. 148193, this Court reversed the CA's decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 63712, ruling that the civil cases did not present a prejudicial question justifying the suspension of the Cavite criminal case. - The State moved for reconsideration of the CA's amended decision in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 71252, citing the ruling in G.R. No. 148193. The CA granted the motion, reversed itself, and ordered the RTC to proceed with the Makati criminal case. The Petition: Consing appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in reversing itself and that the ruling in G.R. No. 148193 was not controlling because it involved Plus Builders, not Unicapital, and that the Makati civil case presented a prejudicial question.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing its earlier decision and holding that the Makati civil case did not present a prejudicial question that warranted the suspension of the proceedings in the Makati criminal case. Whether an independent civil action based on fraud, filed pursuant to Article 33 of the Civil Code, constitutes a prejudicial question that justifies the suspension of a criminal prosecution for estafa through falsification of public document; and the applicability of G.R. No. 148193.
Ruling
The Court affirms the amended decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on August 18, 2003, which reversed its earlier decision and ordered the Regional Trial Court to proceed with the hearing of Criminal Case No. 00-120 with dispatch. The petition for review on certiorari is denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prejudicial question: The Court held that an independent civil action based on fraud, filed pursuant to Article 33 of the Civil Code, does not operate as a prejudicial question that would justify the suspension of a criminal case. Article 33 explicitly states that in cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party and shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, requiring only a preponderance of evidence. This principle was firmly established in previous rulings, including G.R. No. 148193, which involved similar circumstances and parties. The Court reiterated that the determination of issues in the civil case, such as whether Consing acted as a mere agent or whether he is liable for damages, is irrelevant to his guilt or innocence in the criminal case for estafa through falsification. An agent can still be held liable for conspiring to falsify public documents, and a ruling on civil liability does not automatically absolve or convict in the criminal case. The Court emphasized that the Makati civil case filed by Unicapital was predicated on fraud, as evidenced by the allegations of Consing and de la Cruz acting in a "wanton, fraudulent, oppressive, or malevolent manner in offering as security and later object of sale, a property which they do not own, and foisting to the public a spurious title." Therefore, it falls squarely within the ambit of Article 33 of the Civil Code, allowing it to proceed independently of the criminal prosecution. On the issue of independent civil action based on fraud and the applicability of G.R. No. 148193: The Court found Consing's contention that G.R. No. 148193 was not controlling to be without merit. Although G.R. No. 148193 primarily involved Plus Builders, the Supreme Court's ruling therein that the civil actions instituted by Plus Builders and Unicapital against Consing were independent civil actions based on fraud, and thus did not constitute prejudicial questions, was directly applicable. The Court reasoned that the civil actions filed by Plus Builders and Unicapital were "of similar mold" as both were based on fraud and covered by Article 33 of the Civil Code. Therefore, the principle established in G.R. No. 148193 that the criminal case could not be suspended pending the resolution of these civil cases was binding. The Court also addressed Consing's argument regarding the Pasig civil case, reiterating the finding in G.R. No. 148193 that the issue of Consing acting as a mere agent was irrelevant to his criminal liability for conspiring to falsify public documents. The Court concluded that the CA correctly applied the ruling in G.R. No. 148193 when it amended its decision to reverse the suspension of the criminal proceedings.
Main Doctrine
An independent civil action based on fraud, filed pursuant to Article 33 of the Civil Code, does not constitute a prejudicial question that would justify the suspension of a criminal prosecution for estafa through falsification of public document.