RAFAEL JOSE-CONSING, JR., Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. G.R. No. 161075/ July 15, 2013 Po!"!# $ERSA%IN, J. TOPIC# PERSONS; Effect and Application Application of Laws; Human Relations N&"u'!# Petition for Review on Certiorari (o)"'*!# An independent civil action ased on fraud initiated ! t"e defrauded part! does not raise a pre#udicial $uestion to stop t"e proceedin%s in a pendin% criminal prosecution of t"e defendant for estafa t"rou%" falsification. &"is is ecause t"e result of t"e independent civil action is irrelevant to t"e issue of %uilt or innocence of t"e accused. F&)"+# Petitioner ne%otiated wit" and otained for "imself and "is mot"er, Cecilia de la Cru' (de la Cru') various loans totalin% P*+,,. from -nicapital nc. (-nicapital). &"e loans were secured ! a real estate mort%a%e constituted on a parcel of land re%istered under t"e name of de la Cru'. n accordance wit" its option to purc"ase t"e mort%a%ed propert!, propert!, -nicapital a%reed to purc"ase one/"alf of t"e propert! for a total consideration of P0*,00*,1.. Pa!ment was effected ! off/settin% t"e amounts due to -nicapital under t"e promissor! notes of de la Cru' and Consin% in t"e amount of P*+,,. and pa!in% an additional amount of P2,*31,435.1. &"e ot"er "alf of t"e propert! was purc"ased ! Plus 6uilders, nc. (Plus 6uilders), 6uilders), a #oint venture partner of -nicapital. -nicapital. 6efore -nicapital and Plus Plus 6uilders could develop t"e propert!, t"e! learned t"at t"e title to t"e propert! was reall! &C& No. **37+ in t"e names of Po 8illie 9u and :uanito &an &en%, t"e parties from w"om t"e propert! "ad een alle%edl! ac$uired ac$uired ! de la Cru'. &C& No. 5+7144 5+7144 "eld ! e la Cru' appeared appeared to e spurious. spurious. On its part, -nicapital demanded t"e return of t"e total amount of P 3*,277,+1*.3+ as of April *4, *444 t"at "ad een paid to and received ! de la Cru' and Consin%, ut t"e t"e latter i%nored t"e demands. demands.
Consin% filed Civil Case No. *714 in t"e Pasi% Cit! R&C for in#unctive relief, t"ere! see
s Office. -nicapital sued Consin% in t"e R&C in =as Prosecution>s motion for reconsideration. &"e State t"us assailed in t"e CA t"e last two orders of t"e R&C in t"e =as $uestioned orders. On Au%ust *+, 02, t"e CA amended its decision, reversin% itself. Consin% filed a motion for reconsideration, ut t"e CA denied t"e motion t"rou%" t"e second assailed resolution of ecemer **, 02. Hence, t"is appeal ! petition for review on certiorari.
I++u!# 8"et"er or not t"ere is an e?istence of a pre#udicial $uestion t"at warranted t"e suspension of t"e proceedin%s in t"e =a
A perusal of -nicapital>s complaint in t"e =as stance, it was not improper for t"e CA to appl! t"e rulin% in @.R. No. *3+*42 to "is case wit" -nicapital, for, alt"ou%" t"e =anila and =as ein% a mere a%ent of "is mot"er w"o s"ould not e criminall! liale for "avin% so acted due to t"e propert! involved "avin% elon%ed to "is mot"er as principal "as also een settled in @.R. No. *3+*42, to witB n t"e case at ar, we find no pre#udicial $uestion t"at would #ustif! t"e suspension of t"e proceedin%s in t"e criminal case (t"e Cavite criminal case). &"e issue in Civil Case No. SCA *714 (t"e Pasi% civil case) for n#unctive Relief is w"et"er or not respondent (Consin%) merel! acted as an a%ent of "is mot"er, Cecilia de la Cru'; w"ile in Civil Case No. 44/412+* (t"e =anila civil case), for ama%es and Attac"ment, t"e $uestion is w"et"er respondent and "is mot"er are liale to pa ! dama%es and to return t"e amount paid ! P6 for t"e purc"ase of t"e disputed lot. Even if respondent is declared merel! an a%ent of "is mot"er in t"e transaction involvin% t"e sale of t"e $uestioned lot, "e cannot e ad#ud%ed free from criminal liailit!. An a%ent or an! person ma! e "eld liale for conspirin% to falsif! pulic documents. Hence, t"e determination of t"e issue involved in Civil Case No. SCA *714 for n#unctive Relief is irrelevant to t"e %uilt or innocence of t"e respondent in t"e criminal case for estafa t"rou%" falsification of pulic document. 8HEREORE, t"e Court AR=S t"e amended decision promul%ated on Au%ust *+, 02; and ORERS petitioner to pa! t"e costs of suit.
