Published 24 November 2025, The Daily Tribune
In its June 14, 2021 decision in People v. Camenforte (G.R. No. 220916), the Supreme Court confronted a peculiar and instructive scenario: a criminal prosecution for falsification of documents was filed before a related civil action challenging the validity of the same documents. Conventional jurisprudence holds that the doctrine of the prejudicial question under Rule 111, Sec. 7 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure applies only when a civil case was previously instituted before the criminal case. The Court, however, recognized the existence of a prejudicial question even though the temporal order was reversed—thus charting a noteworthy development in Philippine criminal-procedure jurisprudence.
The facts are straightforward. The respondents were charged with falsification under Articles 171(1), (2), and (5) of the Revised Penal Code, alleging that the signatures of certain deceased persons on Deeds of Sale were forged. While the criminal information was pending, heirs of the alleged signatories filed a civil complaint for nullification of title and deeds with damages, asserting that the same Deeds of Sale were null and void due to forgery. The civil action was dismissed by the RTC and the Court of Appeals affirmed. During the pendency of the criminal case, the respondents moved to dismiss on the grounds of res judicata and the existence of a prejudicial question. The courts below granted the motion. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that although res judicata did not apply, a prejudicial question clearly existed and thus the criminal cases had to be dismissed.
At the heart of the decision lies the doctrine of the prejudicial question, which prescribes that when a civil action raises an issue ‘similar or intimately related’ to an issue in a pending criminal action, and the outcome of the civil action is determinative of the criminal case, the criminal action must be suspended until the civil case is resolved. The Court reaffirmed the two elemental requisites: (a) the civil action must involve an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and (b) its resolution must determine whether the criminal action may proceed. In Camenforte, the civil court had already resolved—albeit in dismissing the complaint—that the signatures were genuine and the Deeds valid, a finding that decisively negated the central element of forgery in the falsification charge. Accordingly, the Court found the civil determination entitled to conclusive effect and therefore the criminal prosecution could no longer proceed.
What renders Camenforte significant is the Court’s willingness to dispense with the temporal sequence requirement—that the civil case precede the criminal case. The Court emphasized that this rule is directory rather than mandatory. Even though the criminal action was first, the existence of the later-filed civil case that dealt with an issue determinative of criminal liability triggered the doctrine of prejudicial question. The Court reasoned that the temporal requirement should not rigidly bar relief when justice and the facts clearly call for suspension of the criminal action because a civil resolution has already determined the issue.
This development holds important practical implications. For practitioners, the decision underscores that the timing of a civil action relative to a criminal case is no longer dispositive in determining whether a prejudicial question exists. What matters is the substantive identity of issues and the determinative effect that the civil decision exerts on the criminal liability. On the prosecutorial side, the ruling signals the risk of dismissal when a civil case—even filed later—arrives at a finding that renders the criminal issue moot. For defendants, the decision offers a potential procedural strategy to seek dismissal of a criminal action based on a civil determination, regardless of sequence.
However, caution is warranted. The Court reiterated that the doctrine should not be used as a dilatory tactic. The accused must show a genuine similarity of issues and that the civil case’s outcome will determine the criminal liability. Moreover, while the sequence rule is now deemed directory, courts must still balance the public interest in prompt justice with the private interest in resolving the civil dispute.
In conclusion, People v. Camenforte marks a doctrinal shift: the Supreme Court now recognizes that a prejudicial question may exist even when the criminal case precedes the civil suit. The decision highlights that substance—not sequence—governs the analysis. Lawyers and litigants alike should understand both the power and limits of this expanded doctrine, applying it with integrity.
For more of Dean Nilo Divina’s legal tidbits, please visit www.divinalaw.com. For comments and questions, please send an email to cad@divinalaw.com.
