Prejudicial question liberally construed

"xxx.

Given the foregoing, and as applied to the instant controversy, the Court finds that although the facts of this case involve a criminal action which preceded the institution of the civil action, a prejudicial question nevertheless exists because a survey of the jurisprudential appreciation and application of the doctrine of a prejudicial question demonstrably shows that the strict sequence of institution of the two actions as provided for by Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is more directory than mandatory, and must give way to the chief litmus test of whether the two actions involve prejudicial issues and facts that are similar or otherwise intimately related so that a resolution in one concludes the resolution in the other.

The directory application of the sequence of institution of actions, i.e., the civil case must precede the criminal action, is supported by the fact that the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure are prefaced by the instruction that it must be liberally construed, and that this procedural requirement must be seen in light of the more general principle that substantive rights must prevail over procedural rules. As astutely observed by literature on the framework of the application of the doctrine of prejudicial question in the Philippines:


The very fact that the Court each and every time considered whether or not the criminal case is dependent on the civil case or whether or not the civil case is determinative of the guilt of the accused, before declaring whether or not a prejudicial question exists, indicates that while the Rules may have been phrased in such strict manner, the substance of the issues involved are more important than the mere sequence provided for in the Rules.

According to the Rules, the elements of a prejudicial question are that (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in a subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. It must be noted that the words "previous" and "subsequent" may be more apparent than the other words, such as "issues" "similarly[,]" "resolution[,]" and "determines," provided for in the rule. A reading of the decisions, however, militate against the conclusion that the Court gives less importance to the determinative factor of the issue in the civil case, than on whether or not the strict sequence is followed.

Hence, the rule is directory insofar as the strict sequence of the cases is involved, but is mandatory as to the requirement that the issue in the civil case must be so similar or intimately related to the issue in the criminal case, so as to determine whether or not the criminal action may proceed. Consequently, there are instances when the strict sequence may be dispensed with for as long as the mandatory requirement as to the determinative, similar or intimately related issue is present.103


Xxx. "


G.R. No. 220916, June 14, 2021

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CAMILO CAMENFORTE AND ROBERT LASTRILLA, Respondents.


https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2021junedecisions.php?id=757