G.R. No. L-36703 July 31, 1974
Gotardo Flordelis and Rafael Bollozos, the latter in his capacity as Asst. Fiscal of Tagbilaran, Bohol, petitioners, vs. The Hon. Heracleo Castillo, as City Judge, Branch I, Tagbilaran, Bohol, Merlin O. Mar, Marcelino T. Macapobre, Jr., Delfin Epe, Graciano Ligan, Philip Collyer and Antonio Cuajao, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents, teachers, filed a sworn administrative complaint with the Department of Education and Culture against petitioner principal Gotardo Flordelis. One count accused Flordelis of being a tax evader. In reaction, Flordelis filed a criminal complaint for perjury. After preliminary investigation, Assistant Fiscal Rafael Bollozos found the tax evasion charge unsubstantiated but found basis for the perjury charge regarding the allegation of misdeclaring business sales. An information for perjury was filed against the private respondents, specifically focusing on their false statement labeling Flordelis a tax evader.
Upon arraignment, the private respondents pleaded not guilty and filed a motion to quash the information. Respondent Judge Heracleo Castillo granted the motion and provisionally dismissed the criminal case. He ruled that the unresolved tax evasion issue in the pending administrative case constituted a prejudicial question that must be resolved first before the perjury case could proceed. Petitioners Flordelis and Fiscal Bollozos sought review, contending the prejudicial question doctrine was misapplied and that the provisional dismissal, sought by the accused, could later be pleaded as a bar on double jeopardy grounds.

ISSUE

Whether the pendency of an administrative complaint alleging tax evasion constitutes a prejudicial question that warrants the suspension or dismissal of a criminal prosecution for perjury based on that allegation.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of prejudicial question is inapplicable and set aside the lower court’s resolution. The legal logic is clear from the governing provisions. Article 36 of the Civil Code and Section 5, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court define a prejudicial question as one arising in a pending civil action, the resolution of which is a logical antecedent to and determinative of the guilt or innocence in a criminal case. Here, no civil action exists—only an administrative proceeding. The outcome of an administrative case lacks the final, binding, and conclusive effect of a judicial determination necessary to foreclose the issue of guilt in the criminal perjury case. The administrative body’s finding, whether for or against the complainant, does not juris et de jure establish the falsity or truthfulness of the statement for purposes of the perjury trial.
Furthermore, the Court held that double jeopardy would not attach. The dismissal was explicitly sought by the private respondents through their motion to quash. When an accused actively seeks the dismissal of a case, he is deemed to have waived his constitutional right against double jeopardy and is estopped from pleading it as a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. The Court ordered the reinstatement of the perjury case and for the trial to proceed.