GR 161829; (April, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 161829; April 13, 2007
Arcadio M. Carandang, Petitioner, vs. Edgar A. Ragasa, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Arcadio Carandang and respondent Edgar Ragasa were stockholders of Mabuhay Broadcasting System (MBS). In 1992, Carandang filed a petition for mandamus with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeking to be installed as a director, claiming election during a January 10, 1992 meeting. Ragasa opposed, asserting the valid meeting occurred on February 8, 1992. Ragasa subsequently filed a criminal complaint for perjury against Carandang, alleging Carandang knowingly made false statements in his SEC petition regarding the January meeting. The City Prosecutor found probable cause for perjury and filed an Information in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC).
Carandang appealed to the Department of Justice (DOJ). While his appeal was pending, the MeTC reactivated the case. However, DOJ Secretary Serafin Cuevas then directed the withdrawal of the perjury Information, reasoning that the validity of the stockholders’ meeting was a prejudicial question best resolved first in the SEC case. The MeTC granted the withdrawal. Ragasa filed a motion for reconsideration with the DOJ, which was denied. He then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the DOJ Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the withdrawal of the perjury Information against Carandang on the ground of a prejudicial question.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, ruling that the DOJ Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is that a prejudicial question, as defined under the Rules of Court, exists only when a previously instituted civil action involves an issue intimately related to the guilt or innocence of the accused in a subsequently filed criminal case, and the resolution of that issue determines the criminal action. Here, the SEC case for mandamus was filed before the perjury complaint. Therefore, the sequence required by law for a prejudicial question was not met; the civil action must be subsequent to the criminal prosecution. The DOJ Secretary’s basis for withdrawal was thus legally erroneous.
Furthermore, the Court held that even if a prejudicial question existed, the proper procedure was not to order the withdrawal of the Information but to file a motion to suspend the criminal proceedings in the trial court. The DOJ Secretary overstepped by directly ordering the withdrawal, thereby encroaching on the court’s authority to determine the existence of a prejudicial question and to control its proceedings. This constituted an excess of jurisdiction amounting to grave abuse of discretion. The Court also found that procedural issues raised by Carandang, such as alleged lack of service of the CA petition, were unmeritorious as he had voluntarily participated in the proceedings.