G.R. No. L-22677; February 28, 1967
Pedro III Fortich-Celdran, Jesus, Manuel, Miguel and Vicente, all surnamed Fortich-Celdran; Santiago Catane and Abelardo Cecilio, petitioners, vs. Ignacio A. Celdran and Hon. Court of Appeals, respondents.

FACTS

A civil suit for annulment of an extrajudicial partition and for accounting was filed in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. Among the plaintiffs was Ignacio Celdran. During the proceedings, a motion to withdraw as co-plaintiff, signed “Ignacio Celdran” (Exhibit B-Josefa), was filed. Ignacio was later impleaded as a defendant. After trial but before judgment, Ignacio had the document examined by the police, who opined the signature was falsified. He moved for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, which was denied. All parties except Ignacio entered into an amicable settlement recognizing the partition’s validity. The court rendered judgment declaring the partition valid, finding Ignacio had ratified it by signing the motion to withdraw after receiving partial payment and promises of land. Ignacio appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA- G.R. No. 30499 -R), where it remained pending.
Subsequently, an information for falsification of the same public document (the motion to withdraw, Exh. B-Josefa) was filed in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental against Pedro III Fortich-Celdran and others. Ignacio, as private complainant, moved to suspend the criminal proceedings on the ground of a prejudicial question, arguing that the alleged falsification of the document was at issue in the pending civil appeal. The trial court denied the motion, ruling the forgery was not an issue in the civil case. Ignacio then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA- G.R. No. 31909 -R), which ordered the suspension of the criminal case due to a prejudicial question. The accused in the criminal case appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the pendency of the civil action on appeal before the Court of Appeals, wherein the genuineness of the document (the motion to withdraw) is in issue, constitutes a prejudicial question that warrants the suspension of the criminal prosecution for the alleged falsification of the same document.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, ordering the suspension of the criminal case until the civil case is decided.
The resolution of the civil action poses a prejudicial question to the criminal prosecution. In the civil case, the motion to withdraw was presented as evidence of Ignacio Celdran’s ratification of the partition agreement. The authenticity of this document is directly assailed in that same civil action, with Ignacio maintaining it is a forgery. Since the issue of ratification is principal in the civil appeal, and the falsification or genuineness of the document is among the questions involved, the outcome of the civil case will be logically antecedent and determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal suit for falsifying that very document. A prejudicial question exists when an issue arises in a case, the resolution of which is a logical antecedent to the issue involved therein, is determinative of the case before the court, and jurisdiction to pass upon it is lodged in another tribunal.
The Court also noted that an administrative case filed before it against one of the petitioners (Santiago Catane) based on the same charge had been held in abeyance pending the final decision in the civil litigation. Furthermore, the procedural requirements for raising a prejudicial question were satisfied: the private offended party (Ignacio) could file the motion to suspend through counsel since the Fiscal did not object, and the motion was filed before trial as allowed by the Rules of Court. The denial of the motion to suspend constituted grave abuse of discretion, and certiorari was the proper remedy since the order was interlocutory and not appealable.