Republic vs CA, 296 SCRA 171 181-182 (1998)

failure to deny the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document does not bar
a party at the trial that there is a mistake or imperfection in the writing, or that it does not
express the true agreement of the parties, or that the agreement is invalid or that there is an
intrinsic ambiguity in the writing.
Facts:
Petitioner files an expropriation case against the Quetulio et al for the two parcels of land to
be used for constructing the terminal building for international flights in Laoag nternational
!irport. ! compromise agreement was entered by the parties setting forth the "ust
compensation for the expropriated property which was adopted by the court. #arold
#ernando, representing the respondents as their attorney$in$fact filed a petition for the
issuance of a duplicate copy of the said property and sold the same to spouses !badilla. %he
petitioner files a complaint for the rescission of the deed of sale and cancellation of the
transfer of certificate of title, reconveyance and damages against the respondents contending
that the sale was null and void because the property is already owned by the &epublic and
that the vendees were in bad faith with their prior knowledge of the first sale. #ernando filed
an answer beyond the reglementary period but was allowed by the court to present his
answer praying for the dismissal of the complaint on the basis of the affidavit of revocation
cancelling the compromise agreement between the &epublic's counsel in the person of !tty.
Pedro who allegedly withheld the () checks as part of the consideration of the expropriated
property and signed the rescission of the compromise agreement and deed of conveyance in
favor of the !badilla spouses.
Plaintiff failed to reply to the answer of the respondent who was then held by the trial court to
have admitted the due execution and genuineness of the instruments presented by
respondents in their motion to dismiss. !s a result, the court finds that the plaintiff, after
having admitted the genuineness of the documents, in effect waived*abandoned its claim to
the land in suit. +otion for reconsideration was denied hence the petitioner filed a petition for
certiorari to the ,! which was dismissed after treating the same as an ordinary appeal filed
out of time.
Negative pregat
!"#$A%&'N v( S)eet $ies
,ontroversy over several shipments of chemicals aboard the vessel owned by -weet Lines
which were delivered damaged and lacking in number to plaintiff P#L!+./0. -weet Lines
argued that the action has prescribed since the claim for damages were not presented within
the period stipulated in the bills of lading. P#L!+./0 contended that the bills of lading
were not presented in evidence, therefore, since the tenor and existence of the stipulations
were not established, it was inconceivable how they can comply therewith. %rial court held in
favor of P#L!+./0 but ,! reversed.
-upreme ,ourt held that the action has already prescribed. 1esides, plaintiff's failure to
specifically deny the existence, genuineness and due execution of the instruments amounted
too an admission.
P#L!+./0's denial has procedural earmarks of a negative pregnant which is a denial
pregnant with the admission of the substantial facts in the pleading responded to which are
not s2uarely denied. -uch defense is in effect an admission of the averment. %hus, while
they ob"ected to the stipulation in the bills of lading as being contrary to policy, existence of
the bills were nevertheless impliedly admitted.
3..&. 0o. (((455. 6ecember (7, (889:
!&%;&< !L!0<, petitioner, vs. %#/ #<0<&!1L/ ,<;&% <= !PP/!L-, #<0. /0&,<
!. L!0>!0!-, Presiding ?udge, &egional %rial ,ourt, 0ational ,apital ?udicial &egion,
+anila, 1ranch @9, and &<1/&%< ,!&L<-, respondents.
Petitioner !rturo !lano has filed this petition for review of the decision3(: of the ,ourt of
!ppeals in ,!$..&. -P 0o. 4A(7) which affirmed in toto the order of the &egional %rial ,ourt
of +anila, 1ranch @934: denying petitioner's motion for the suspension of proceeding of
,riminal ,ase 0o. 8)$A58@@, entitled People of the Philippines vs. !rturo !lano as well as
his motion for reconsideration.
,riminal ,ase 0o. 8)$A58@@ is a prosecution for the crime of estafa. %he information3@:
allegesB
%hat on or about ?une (), (8AC, in the ,ity of +anila, Philippines, the said accused did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud &oberto -. ,arlos in the following
manner, to witB the said accused, pretending to be still the owner of a parcel of land with an
area of (,(94 s2uare meters, more or less, located at 1icutan, %aguig, +etro +anila, covered
by %ax 6eclaration 0o. (4)$))5$))@8A, well knowing that he had previously sold the same to
the said &oberto -. ,arlos for P@),))).)), sold the aforesaid property for the second time to
one /rlinda 1. 6andoy for PA9,8)).)), thereby depriving the said &oberto -. ,arlos of his
rightful ownership*possession of the said parcel of land, to the damage and pre"udice of the
said &oberto -. ,arlos in the aforesaid amount of P@),))).)), Philippine currency.
,ontrary to law.
Petitioner moved for the suspension of the criminal case on the ground that there was a
pre"udicial 2uestion pending resolution in another case being tried in the &egional %rial ,ourt,
0ational ,apital &egion, Pasig, 1ranch CA. %he case, docketed as ,ivil ,ase 0o. 77()@ and
entitled &oberto ,arlos and %rinidad +. ,arlos v. !rturo !lano, et al., concerns the nullity of
the sale and recovery of possession and damages. n the aforementioned ,ivil ,ase, private
respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner seeking the annulment of the second sale
of said parcel of land made by the petitioner to a certain /rlinda 6andoy on the premise that
the said land was previously sold to them. n his answer, petitioner contends that he never
sold the property to the private respondents and that his signature appearing in the deed of
absolute sale in favor of the latter was a forgery, hence, the alleged sale was fictitious and
inexistent. !t this "uncture, it is worth mentioning that the civil case was filed on +arch (,
(8A7, five years before ?une (8, (88) when the criminal case for estafa was instituted.
<n <ctober @, (88(, the trial court denied the petitioner's motion as well as a subse2uent
motion for reconsideration.
!ggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the ,ourt of !ppeals
seeking the nullification of the assailed order.
<n ?uly 4C, (88@,35: the ,ourt of !ppeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit, the decretal
portion of which readsB
D#/&/=<&/, finding no merit to the petition, the same is hereby 6-+--/6, with cost
against petitioner.
#ence, this petition.
%he only issue in this petition is whether the pendency of ,ivil ,ase 0o. 77()@, is a
pre"udicial 2uestion "ustifying the suspension of the proceedings in ,riminal ,ase 0o. 8)$
A58@@ filed against the petitioner.
Petitioner alleges that his signature appearing in the first deed of absolute sale in favor of
private respondent was a forgery, such that there was no second sale covering the said
parcel of land. <therwise stated, if the ,ourt in the said ,ivil ,ase rules that the first sale to
herein private respondent was null and void, due to the forgery of petitioner's signature in the
first deed of sale, it follows that the criminal case for estafa would not prosper.
Dhile at first blush there seems to be merit in petitioner's claim, we are compelled to affirm
the ,ourt of !ppeals' findings.
%he doctrine of pre"udicial 2uestion comes into play in a situation where a civil action and a
criminal action are both pending and there exists in the former an issue which must be
preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed, because howsoever the issue
raised in the civil action is resolved such resolution would be determinative of the guilt or
innocence of the accused in the criminal action.37: n other words, if both civil and criminal
cases have similar issues or the issue in one is intimately related to the issues raised in the
other, then a pre"udicial 2uestion would likely exist, provided the other element or
characteristic is satisfied.3C:
<n the basis of the foregoing and a perusal of the facts obtaining in the case at bar, the
disposition of the issue raised need not unduly detain us. De have already ruled that a
criminal action for estafa Efor alleged double sale of propertyF is a pre"udicial 2uestion to a civil
action for nullity of the alleged deed of sale and the defense of the alleged vendor is the
forgery of his signature in the deed.39:
0otwithstanding the apparent pre"udicial 2uestion involved, the ,ourt of !ppeals still affirmed
the <rder of the trial court denying petitioner's motion for the suspension of the proceeding on
the ground that petitioner, in the stipulation of facts, had already admitted during the pre$trial
order dated <ctober 7, (88) of the criminal case the validity of his signature in the first deed
of sale between him and the private respondent, as well as his subse2uent acknowledgment
of his signature in twenty$three E4@F cash vouchers evidencing the payments made by the
private respondent. 3A: +oreover, it was also noted by the ,ourt of !ppeals that petitioner
even wrote to the private respondent offering to refund whatever sum the latter had paid.38:
n this regard, the pre$trial provision on criminal procedure found in &ule ((A of the &ules of
,ourt providesB
-ec. 4. Pre$trial conferenceG sub"ects. x x x. %he pre$trial conference shall consider the
followingB
EaF Plea bargaining
EbF-tipulation of facts
=rom the foregoing, there is no 2uestion that a stipulation of facts by the parties in a criminal
case is recogniHed as declarations constituting "udicial admissions, hence, binding upon the
parties3(): and by virtue of which the prosecution dispensed with the introduction of additional
evidence and the defense waived the right to contest or dispute the veracity of the statement
contained in the exhibit.3((:
!ccordingly, the stipulation of facts stated in the pre$trial order amounts to an admission by
the petitioner resulting in the waiver of his right to present evidence on his behalf. Dhile it is
true that the right to present evidence is guaranteed under the ,onstitution,3(4: this right may
be waived expressly or impliedly.3(@:
-ince the suspension of the criminal case due to a pre"udicial 2uestion is only a procedural
matter, the same is sub"ect to a waiver by virtue of the prior acts of the accused. !fter all, the
doctrine of waiver is made solely for the benefit and protection of the individual in his private
capacity, if it can be dispensed with and relin2uished without infringing on any public right and
without detriment to the community at large.3(5:
!ccordingly, petitioner's admission in the stipulation of facts during the pre$trial of the
criminal amounts to a waiver of his defense of forgery in the civil case. #ence, we have no
reason to nullify such waiver, it being not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or
good customs, or pre"udicial to a third person with a right recogniHed by law.3(7: =urthermore,
it must be emphasiHed that the pre$trial order was signed by the petitioner himself. !s such,
the rule that no proof need be offered as to any facts admitted at a pre$trial hearing applies.
3(C:
D#/&/=<&/, in view of the foregoing, the appealed decision of the ,ourt of !ppeals dated
?uly 4C, (88@ is !==&+/6. ,osts against petitioner.
-< <&6/&/6.
!'*!$' +S( S*$A,A* (&R 11922-, S'!.( 2-, 1996) /igest
FAC.S:
- 0ilo -olayao was charged before the &egional %rial ,ourt of 0aval, 1iliran, 1ranch (C, with
the crime of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition defined and penaliHed under
Presidential 6ecree 0o. (ACC.
- -P<@ ?ose 0io stated that he and other operatives went to 1arangay ,aulangohan,
,aibiran, 1iliran. %hey were to conduct an intelligence patrol as re2uired of them by their
intelligence officer to verify reports on the presence of armed persons roaming around the
barangays of ,aibiran.
- %he team of Police <fficer 0io proceeded to 1arangay <nion where they met the group of
accused$appellant 0ilo -olayao numbering five. %he former became suspicious when they
observed that the latter were drunk and that -olayao was wearing a camouflage uniform or a
"ungle suit. -olayao's companions, upon seeing the government agents, fled.
- ,onfiscated from -olayao is a homemade firearm called Latong. -olayao admitted that he
had no permission to possess the same. %hereupon, -P<@ 0io confiscated the firearm and
turned him over to the custody of the policeman of ,aibiran who subse2uently investigated
him and charged him with illegal possession of firearm.
- -olayao was found guilty, then he appealed to the court against the admissibility of the
firearm as evidence as it was the product of an unlawful warrantless search.
#SS0':
D<0 the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the homemade firearm(
"'$/:
=irearm is admissible as evidence.
RA.#*:
%he case at bar constitutes an instance where a search and seiHure may be effected
without first making an arrest. %here was "ustifiable cause to Istop and friskI accused$
appellant when his companions fled upon seeing the government agents. ;nder the
circumstances, the government agents could not possibly have procured a search warrant
first. -uspicion also arouse when the group was spotted dressed in camouflage(
!lso the officers were precisely in the area to conduct an operation to verify the
intelligence report and stop any potential disturbance in the area.