Benitez v. Concepcion Case Digest

Benitez v.
Concepcion
A petition to prohibit the investigation of a criminal case for falsification of deeds of real estate
mortgage was filed against Hermogenes Concepcion.
FACTS:
That on May 4, 1946 Rufino Ibanez, Ong ho and Chingsiokeng (wife of Yu bon Chiong) executed
a real estate mortgage at Philippine National Bank (PNB) for the payment of the Debtor (Yu bon Chiong)
with an amount of P50,000,00 the mortgage was amended on March 26, 19657 to secure the payment
of the increase indebtness of the petitioner which had risen to P170,000,00. The petitioner failed to pay
the debt that causes the PNB to file with the CFI of Rizal a civil case against the petitioner and
respondent (civil case 449).
On July 24, 1957 Ong ho filed a complaint in the CFI manila civil case 33251 against the PNB and
petitioners for the annulment of the two deeds of mortgage, claiming that his signature in the said
documents was forged.
On July 16, 1958 Respondent Ong ho filed a Criminal case complaint before the city fiscal of
manila, charging the petitioner falsification of deeds of mortgage involved in civil case no. 994.
On July 2, 1958 Petitioner filed a motion before the respondent fiscal for the dismissal of the
criminal complaint on the ground that there’s a civil prejudicial question of which should be resolved
first.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a civil prejudicial question exist in the said petition
HELD:
No, disputes arises from the fact that both civil case no. 33251 and criminal case O.S no 15190
arose from the same transaction or fact. Where both a civil and criminal action arising from the same
fact are filed in court the criminal case takes precedence (Rule 107, Sec 1b)
An exception to this general rule would be - if there exist prejudicial questions which should be
resolved first before action could be taken in the criminal case and when the law provides that both the
civil and criminal case can be instituted simultaneously (Art. 33, new Civil Code). A prejudicial question
has been defined as -
. . . . One based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it
determines the guilt or innocence of the accused. (Civil Code Annotated by Padilla, Vol. I, 1956 Ed., p.
83; see also De Leon v. Mabanag, 70 Phil. 202, as to the definition of the term).
Under the foregoing doctrine, for a civil case to be considered prejudicial to a criminal action as
to cause the suspension of the latter pending its (civil case) final determination, it must appear not only
that the said civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which take criminal prosecution
would be based, but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the aforesaid civil action
the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. (D.S. Mendiola et al. v. Hon. H.
Macadaeg, et al., G.R. No. L-16874, Feb. 27, 1961).
In Civil Case No. 33251, for annulment of the deed of mortgage, the issue is that the signatures
of Ong Ho appearing therein are forged. In the criminal case, O.S. No. 15190, the issue is likewise the
falsification of the deeds in question. It appearing that the principal issues in both cases are the same,
and/or arise from the same facts, it stands to reason that it is not necessary that the civil case be
determined first before taking up the criminal case.
In the present proceedings, the civil case does not involve a question prejudicial to the criminal
case, for to whomsoever the land may be awarded after all the evidence has been presented in the civil
case, may not affect the alleged crime committed by the notary public, which is the subject of the
criminal case. But, even supposing that both the civil and the criminal case involve the same questions
and one must precede the other, it should be the civil which should be suspended rather than the
criminal, to await the result of the latter (Section 1, Rule 107; Almeda, et al., v. Abaroa, 8 Phil. 178; See
also par. 2, Art. 35, N.C.C.)
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition for prohibition is denied, and the writ of
preliminary injunction issued is dissolved. With costs against.

Benitez v. Concepcion Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Benitez v. Concepcion Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Benitez v. Concepcion Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Benitez v.

Whether or not a civil prejudicial question exist in the said petition

You might also like