Está en la página 1de 1

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs.RAFAEL JOSE CONSING, JR., respondent.

Facts:
Sometime in February 1997, respondent Rafael Jose Consing, Jr. and his mother, Cecilia de la Cru,
! represented to "lus #uilders, $nc. %"#$& that they are the true and la'ful o'ners of a !(,!!) s*uare meter
lot situated in $mus, Ca+ite and co+ered by ,ransfer Certi-cate of ,itle .o. /07199 in the name of Cecilia
de la Cru.
,hey further represented that they ac*uired said lot, 'hich 'as pre+iously co+ered by ,C, .o.
191!20 from Juanito ,an ,eng and "o 3illie 4u. Relying on the representations of respondent and his
mother, "#$ purchased the *uestioned lot. $n 5pril 1999, "#$ disco+ered that respondent and his mother
did not ha+e a +alid title o+er the sub6ect lot. "#$ came to 7no' that Juanito ,an ,eng and "o 3illie 4u ne+er
sold said lot to respondent and his mother and that ,C, .o. 191!20 upon 'hich ,C, .o. /07199 'as
based is not on -le 'ith the Register of 8eeds. $n 5ugust 1999, "#$ 'as ousted from the possession of the
disputed lot by Juanito ,an ,eng and "o 3illie 4u.
8espite 'ritten and +erbal demands, respondent and his mother refused to return the amount of
"1),)/9,/!1 alleged to ha+e been initially paid by "#$.9n July ((, 1999, respondent -led 'ith the Regional
,rial Court of "asig City, #ranch /0, an action for :$n6uncti+e Relief: doc7eted as Ci+il Case .o. SC5 1719,
against "#$, ;nicapital $nc, ;nicapital Realty $nc., Jaime <artires,<ariano 8. <artine, Cecilia de la Cru and
(2 other John 8oes. Respondent sought a declaration that he 'as merely an agent of his mother, Cecilia
de la Cru, and therefore 'as not under any obligation to "#$ and to the other defendants on the +arious
transactions in+ol+ing ,C, .o. /07199. 9n 9ctober 1), 1999, "#$ -led against respondent and his mother a
complaint for :8amages and 5ttachment,: doc7eted as Ci+il Case .o. 99=91)01, 'ith #ranch 1( of the
Regional ,rial Court of <anila. Respondent -led a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum shopping and
pendency of Ci+il Case .o. SC5 1719. 7 9n January (1, (222, a criminal case for estafa through
falsi-cation of public document 'as -led against respondent Rafael Jose Consing, Jr. and his mother 'ith
the R,C of $mus, Ca+ite.
$ssue: 3hether or not the pendency of Ci+il Case .os. SC5 1719 and 99=91)01, for $n6uncti+e Relief
and for 8amages and 5ttachment, is a pre6udicial *uestion 6ustifying the suspension of the proceedings in
the criminal casefor estafa through falsi-cation of public document, -led against the respondent.
>eld: $f both ci+il and criminal cases ha+e similar issues or the issue in one is intimately related to
the issues raisedin the other, then a pre6udicial *uestion 'ould li7ely e?ist, pro+ided the other element or
characteristic is satis-ed. $t must appear not only that the ci+il case in+ol+es the same facts upon 'hich
the criminal prosecution 'ould be based, but also that the resolution of the issues raised in the ci+il action
'ould be necessarily determinati+e of the guilt or innocence of the accused. $f the resolution of the issue in
the ci+il action 'ill not determine the criminal responsibility of the accused in the criminal action based on
the same facts, or there is no necessity that the ci+il case be determined -rst before ta7ing up the criminal
case, therefore, the ci+il case does not in+ol+e a pre6udicial *uestion. $n the case at bar, 'e -nd no
pre6udicial *uestion that 'ould 6ustify the suspension of the proceedings in thecriminal case
People vs Perez : !"##$ : Fe%r&'r( #, "))*
F5C,S: 5ppellant 'as charged 'ith the crime of rape. 5t pretrial, the prosecution and defense stipulated
some facts including the age of the +ictim and her birth certi-cate 'as presented as e+idence. >e 'as
later con+icted and 'as punished to death by the R,C. $n his reply brief, appellant maintains that the death
penalty cannot be properly imposed on him for failure of the prosecution to pro+e +ictim@s age by
independent e+idence. 5ppellant points out that 'hile the birth certi-cate 'as duly mar7ed during pre=
trial, it 'as not presented during the trial. 5ppellant assert that minority must not speci-cally alleged in
the information but must also be established beyond reasonable doubt during the trial.
$SS;A: 3hether the minority must still be established in the trialB
>AC8: .9. 5t the pre=trial, the parties mutually 'or7ed out a satisfactory disposition of the criminal case.
5ppellant, assisted by counsel signed a pre=trial agreement stating that the +ictim is <aria, born <ay () as
e+idenced by her birth certi-cate. 8uring the pretrial, the prosecution mar7ed in e+idence the birth
certi-cate, it 'as submitted in its oDer of e+idence and R,C admitted 'ithout ob6ection from defense. ,he
purpose of the pre=trial is to consider the follo'ing: a& plea bargainingE b& stipulation of factsE c& mar7ing
for identi-cation of e+idenceE d&'ai+er of ob6ection to admissibility of e+idenceE e& modi-cation of order of
trial if the accused admits the charge but interpose la'ful defenseE f& such matter as 'ill promote a fair
and e?pedite the trial. Facts stipulated and e+idence admitted during pre=trial binds the parties. 5fter the
pre= trial conference, the trial court 'ill issue and order reciting the action ta7en, facts stipulated and
e+idence mar7ed. Such order shall bind the parties, limit the trial to matters not disposed of and control
the course of trial, unless modi-ed by the court to pre+ent manifest in6ustice.

También podría gustarte