G.R. No. 164298 ; April 30, 2008
ENGR. ROGER F. BORJA, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Engr. Roger F. Borja, the General Manager of the San Pablo Water District, was charged before the Regional Trial Court with three counts of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 , the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Prior to his arraignment, Borja filed a Motion to Suspend Arraignment, arguing that a prejudicial question existed. He cited the pending case of Feliciano v. Commission on Audit ( G.R. No. 147402 ) before the Supreme Court, which involved the issue of whether local water districts are private corporations or government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs). Borja contended that if the Supreme Court ruled that water districts are private entities, he would not be considered a public officer, and the graft charges under RA 3019, which applies only to public officers, could not proceed against him.
The trial court denied his motion, a ruling subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The appellate court noted existing jurisprudence that had already settled the nature of local water districts as GOCCs. Borja elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari, insisting that the pendency of the Feliciano case constituted a prejudicial question warranting the suspension of the criminal proceedings against him.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that no prejudicial question existed to warrant the suspension of the graft cases against the petitioner?

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that no prejudicial question existed. A prejudicial question arises when a previously instituted civil action involves an issue so intimately related to the issue in a subsequent criminal action that the resolution of the former is determinative of the latter. For it to suspend criminal proceedings, the civil case must have been instituted prior to the criminal action.
More critically, the Court found Borja’s legal premise to be fundamentally flawed. The issue he raised—whether a local water district is a GOCC—had already been settled by jurisprudence long before the filing of his motion. The Court cited cases such as Hagonoy Water District v. NLRC and Davao City Water District v. Civil Service Commission, which consistently ruled that local water districts are GOCCs, as they derive their existence from Presidential Decree No. 198 (The Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973) and not from the Corporation Code governing private entities. Consequently, as General Manager of a GOCC, Borja is indisputably a public officer covered by RA 3019. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Feliciano case, which Borja relied upon, had already been decided by the Supreme Court on January 14, 2004—months before he filed his petition—and it reaffirmed the doctrine that water districts are GOCCs. Therefore, at the time of his appeal, there was absolutely no pending prejudicial question to speak of, rendering his petition without merit.