439 U.S. at 329, 99 S.Ct. 645. The court considers the following four factors: 1) an identity of issues (that is, that the issue sought to be precluded is the same as that which was involved-in the prior proceedings); 2) actuality of litigation (that is, that the point was actually litigated in earlier proceedings); 3) finality of the earlier resolution (that is, that the issue was determined by a valid and binding final judgment or order); and 4) the centrality of the adjudication (that is, that the determination of the issue in the prior proceeding was essential to the final judgment or order). Acevedo-Garcia v. Monroig, 351 F.3d 547, 576 (2003). The same analysis is used when the prior state proceeding was a criminal case. See Cardillo v. Zyla, 486 F.2d 473, 474 (1st Cir.1973) (<HOLDING>). Puerto Rico’s doctrine of preclusion,
holding that prior adjudication barred a claim that arose out of the same transactions and that could have been raised in prior suit holding that the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars readjudication of issues when 1 the prior suit resulted in judgment on the merits 2 identical issues are involved 3 the issue was actually litigated 4 the issue was actually determined and 5 the determination was necessary to the resulting judgment holding that trial by consent requires that the parties actually recognize the issue to have been litigated holding that a civil claim is barred by collateral estoppel even though the prior adjudication was in criminal proceedings and the parties are not the same because the matters were actually litigated and decided in the prior trial holding that the failure to return a verdict does not have collateral estoppel effect  unless the record establishes that the issue was actually and necessarily decided in the defendants favor