GR 139655; (July, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 139655; July 27, 2000
FIRST PRODUCERS HOLDINGS CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. LUIS CO, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner First Producers Holdings Corporation filed a criminal complaint for estafa against respondent Luis Co. The charge alleged that Co, a former corporate officer, held a Manila Polo Club proprietary share in trust for the corporation. Upon his separation, he executed a false affidavit of loss to secure a replacement certificate in his own name, thereby converting the share. An information for estafa was filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati.
During the pendency of the criminal case, Co filed a civil action for damages against the corporation and its representative, claiming ownership over the same proprietary share. He then moved to suspend the criminal proceedings, arguing that the resolution of the civil case posed a prejudicial question. The RTC denied the motion. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, ordering the suspension of the criminal case to await the outcome of the civil action, holding that the issue of ownership was a logical antecedent to the estafa charge.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in suspending the criminal proceedings for estafa on the ground of a prejudicial question arising from a subsequently filed civil case asserting ownership.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the RTC order denying the suspension. The rule on prejudicial question requires that the civil action must have been instituted prior to the criminal action. Here, the criminal complaint was filed first. The civil suit was initiated by Co only after the criminal proceedings had commenced, making it an obvious afterthought designed to delay the prosecution.
The logic of the law is to prevent the accused from using a belated civil action as a tactical ploy to obstruct justice. The criminal court trying the estafa case is fully competent to determine the issue of ownership as it is integral to the charge of misappropriation or conversion. Allowing suspension under these circumstances would sanction dilatory tactics, multiply suits, and frustrate the speedy administration of justice. Procedural rules must be construed to promote substantial justice, not to aid in its delay. The criminal proceedings must therefore proceed with dispatch.