GR L 16189; (February, 1920) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16189; February 26, 1920
CALIXTO BERBARI, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE PEDRO CONCEPCION, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OF MANILA, respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner Calixto Berbari filed a civil action against Alfred Chicote in the Court of First Instance for the recovery of a deposit and for an accounting of their business dealings. Subsequently, Chicote filed a criminal complaint for estafa against Berbari, alleging that Berbari had misappropriated the sum of P37,500 which Chicote had given him for a specific purpose (to pay for a 25% share in the capital of the “Tayabas Oil Co.”). Berbari admitted receiving and appropriating the money but claimed he did so because Chicote owed him a larger sum arising from their other transactions. Berbari then filed the present petition, seeking to annul the criminal proceedings and to suspend the hearing of the criminal case (Criminal Case No. 18492) until the civil action he filed against Chicote is finally decided. He argued that the resolution of the civil case constitutes a prejudicial question that must be resolved first.
ISSUE:
Whether the civil action for accounting and debt filed by Berbari against Chicote presents a prejudicial question that necessitates the suspension of the criminal proceedings for estafa.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition. The civil and criminal cases involve distinct and independent causes of action. The civil case arises from contracts and business relations between the parties, while the criminal case for estafa arises from the alleged fraudulent misappropriation of a specific sum delivered for a particular purpose. The determination of whether Chicote is indebted to Berbari in the civil case is not a prerequisite for deciding whether Berbari committed the crime of estafa. A prejudicial question, as understood in law, is one so intimately related to the crime that its resolution is logically antecedent to and determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Here, even if the civil suit is decided in Berbari’s favor, it would not absolve him of criminal liability if the elements of estafa are proven. The criminal act of alleged misappropriation is separate from the contractual obligations subject of the civil suit. Consequently, there is no prejudicial question, and the criminal proceedings should proceed independently without awaiting the outcome of the civil case.