This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-07-27 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| When, in the course of the actions taken by those to whom the complaint is endorsed or forwarded, a prejudicial question is found to be pending, Section 6, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court should be applied in a suppletory character.[16] As laid down in Yap v. Paras,[17] said rule directs that the proceedings may only be suspended, not dismissed, and that it may be made only upon petition, and not at the instance of the judge alone or as in this case, the investigating officer. | |||||
|
2000-07-31 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| A prejudicial question is one which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein.[3] It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused.[4] It must appear not only that the civil case involves facts upon which the criminal action is based, but also that the resolution of the issues raised in the civil action would necessarily be determinative of the criminal case.[5] Consequently, the defense must involve an issue similar or intimately related to the same issue raised in the criminal action and its resolution determinative of whether or not the latter action may proceed.[6] Its two essential elements are:[7] | |||||