de Zuzuarregui vs. Hon. Villarosa, Et. Al, G.R. 183788, April 5, 2010

11. De Zuzuarregui vs. Hon. Villarosa, et.
al, AUTHOR: SAGUIN

G.R. 183788, April 5, 2010
TOPIC: PREJUDICIAL QUESTION (Art. 36)
PONENTE: VILLARAMA, JR., J
CASE LAW/DOCTRINE:
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, the civil case does not involve a prejudicial
question. Neither is there a prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal action can, according to law,
proceed independently of each other. As stated, the determination of whether the proceedings may
be suspended on the basis of a prejudicial question rests on whether the facts and issues raised in the
pleadings in the civil case are so related with the issues raised in the criminal case such that the
resolution of the issues in the civil case would also determine the judgment in the criminal case.
EMERGENCY RECIT:
Rosemary Torres Ty-Rasekhi and petitioner Krizia Ty-de Zuzuarregui filed a compromise agreement
filed in court in which it states that they are the only heirs of Bella Torres, the mother of
Rosemary. Subsequently, Peter Ty, Catherine Ty, and Fannie Ty all claimed to be biological children
of Bella. They filed a charge against petitioner and Rosemary of falsification and forgery for having to
alleged that they were the only heirs of Bella and for the annulment of the compromise agreement.
The RTC found them guilty of falsification of public document in which the CA affirmed the same.
Petitioner argues that there is a prejudicial question in the filing of the criminal case. The SC ruled in
the affirmative and the criminal case was suspended. It was clear that in the petition to annul the
compromise agreement in which their names were not included, having to adjudge the civil case
would know if they are really heirs of Bella. If not, then the criminal case against petitioners has no
basis to proceed its course.
FACTS:
Rosemary Torres Ty-Rasekhi and petitioner Krizia Ty-de Zuzuarregui filed a compromise agreement
filed in court in which it states that they are the only heirs of Bella Torres, the mother of Rosemary.
Subsequently, Peter Ty, Catherine Ty, and Fannie Ty all claimed to be biological children of Bella.
They filed a charge against petitioner and Rosemary of falsification and forgery for having to alleged
that they were the only heirs of Bella and for the annulment of the compromise agreement.
The RTC found them guilty of falsification of public document in which the CA affirmed the same.
Petitioner argues that there is a prejudicial question in the filing of the criminal case.
Peter, Catherine, and Fannie alleged that upon the death of Bella, they held a number of discussions
pertaining to the settlement of the latters estate. Rosemary made known to them her intention to get a
disproportionately larger share of the estate, but they did not agree. No agreement was reached and as
far as they know, no progress was made towards the settlement of Bellas estate. They were not aware
that Rosemary had filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration and that a judgment by
compromise agreement was rendered by the RTC of Pasig City. Rosemary had falsely averred that aside
from herself, petitioner, who was her niece, was the only other heir of Bella. In petitioners opposition, it
was likewise averred that petitioner and Rosemary were the only heirs of Bella. The subsequent
compromise agreement contained similar averments, and it was not disclosed that Peter, Catherine,
and Fannie were also Bellas heirs. It was only sometime in June 2004 that they came to know of the
decision by compromise agreement of the Pasig City RTC.
While the action for annulment of judgment was pending before the Court of Appeals, Fannie filed a
complaint for falsification and perjury against petitioner and Rosemary. Fannie alleged that petitioner
and Rosemary falsely and maliciously stated in the pertinent pleadings filed before the RTC of Pasig City
that the late Bella had only two (2) heirs, namely the two (2) of them. Petitioner and Rosemary
forthwith filed a joint motion to suspend the preliminary investigation on the ground of a pending
prejudicial question before the Court of Appeals.
Petitioner and Rosemary filed a joint motion to suspend the preliminary investigation on the ground of
a pending prejudicial question before the Court of Appeals. They argued that the issue of whether Peter,
Catherine, and Fannie are related to Bella and therefore legal heirs of the latter was pending before the
Court of Appeals. The investigating prosecutor denied the joint motion and found probable cause
against petitioner and Rosemary for two (2) counts each of falsification of public documents. The
prosecutor held that the issue before the Court of Appeals is the validity of the compromise agreement
which is not determinative of the criminal case which involves the liability of petitioner and Rosemary
for falsification, allegedly for willfully making the false statements in the opposition to the petition for
letters of administration and in the subsequent compromise agreement filed before the RTC of Pasig
City.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether there is a prejudical question involved. YES
RATIO:
Under Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, a criminal action may be
suspended upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action, to wit:
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 the same criminal action at any time
before the prosecution rests.
For a prejudicial question in a civil case to suspend a criminal action, it must appear not only
that said civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would
be based, but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or
innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. The rationale behind the principle of
prejudicial question is to avoid two (2) conflicting decisions.
Thus, 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, 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.
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, the civil case
does not involve a prejudicial question. Neither is there a prejudicial question if the civil and the
criminal action can, according to law, proceed independently of each other.
As stated, the determination of whether the proceedings may be suspended on the

basis of a prejudicial question rests on whether the facts and issues raised in the pleadings in
the civil case are so related with the issues raised in the criminal case such that the resolution
of the issues in the civil case would also determine the judgment in the criminal case.
A perusal of the allegations in the petition to annul judgment shows that CA-G.R. SP No.
87222 pending before the Court of Appeals is principally for the determination of the validity of the
compromise agreement, which did not include Peter, Catherine, and Fannie as heirs of Bella. Peter,
Catherine, and Fannie presented evidence to prove that they are also biological children of Bella and
Alejandro. On the other hand, Criminal Case Nos. 343812 to 343814 before the MeTC involve the
determination of whether petitioner committed falsification of public documents in executing
pleadings containing untruthful statements that she and Rosemary were the only legal heirs of Bella.
It is evident that the result of the civil case will determine the innocence or guilt of the
petitioner in the criminal cases for falsification of public documents. The criminal cases arose out of
the claim of Peter, Catherine, and Fannie that they are also the legal heirs of Bella. If it is finally
adjudged in the civil case that they are not biological children of the late Bella and consequently not
entitled to a share in her estate as heirs, there is no more basis to proceed with the criminal cases
against petitioner who could not have committed falsification in her pleadings filed before the RTC of
Pasig City, the truth of her statements regarding the filiation of Peter, Catherine and Fannie having
been judicially settled.
The petition is GRANTED.
Dissenting Opinion:

de Zuzuarregui vs. Hon. Villarosa, Et. Al, G.R. 183788, April 5, 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

de Zuzuarregui vs. Hon. Villarosa, Et. Al, G.R. 183788, April 5, 2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

de Zuzuarregui vs. Hon. Villarosa, Et. Al, G.R. 183788, April 5, 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11. De Zuzuarregui vs. Hon. Villarosa, et.

al, AUTHOR: SAGUIN

SEC. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. - A petition for

As stated, the determination of whether the proceedings may be suspended on the

The petition is GRANTED.

You might also like