DREAMWORK

CONSTRUCTION,

INC.,

the

previously

instituted

civil

action

vs.Janiola

involves an issue similar or intimately related to

G.R. No. 184861 June 30, 2009

the issue raised in the subsequent criminal

action; thus, this element is missing in this

Facts:

case, the criminal case having preceded the

This case is a petition for the reversal of

civil case.

the decision on the suspension of the criminal

The MTC granted the RespondentsMo tion

proceeding filed by the petitioner in the MTC for

to Suspend Proceedings. Petitioner appealed

the

the Orders to the RTC but denied the petition.

ground

that

there

is

presence

of

prejudicial question with respect to the civil

Hence, this petition raised.

case belatedly filed by the respondent. The

petitioner

appealed

to

RTC

but

denied

ISSUE

Dreamwork, through its President, and Vice-

Whether or not the MTC or RTC Court erred in its

President, filed a Complaint Affidavit against

discretion to suspend proceedings in Criminal

Janiola for violation of BP 22 at the Office of the

Case on the basis of Prejudicial Question

City

, with respect to the Civil Case belatedly filed.

Prosecutor

of

Las

Pias

City.

Correspondingly, the former also filed a criminal

information

for

of BP

22

the

MTC,

This petition must be granted, pursuant to

entitled People of the Philippines v. Cleofe S.

SEC. 7.Elements of prejudicial question.

Janiola.

The elements of a prejudicial question are:

against private
On

violation

respondent

September

20,

with

2006,

Janiola,

Held

instituted a civil complaint against petitioner for

(a) the previously instituted civil action involves

the

construction

an issue similar or intimately related to the

agreement between the parties, as well as for

issue raised in the subsequent criminal action,

damages. Thereafter respondent filed a Motion

and (b) the resolution of such issue determines

to Suspend Proceedings in the Criminal Case for

whether or not the criminal action may proceed.

the ground that private respondent claim that

Under the amendment, a prejudicial question is

the

understood in law as that which must precede

rescission

of

an

alleged

civil case posed a prejudicial

question

against the criminal case. Petitioner opposed

the

the Respondents Motion to Suspend criminal

decision

proceeding based on juridical question for the

rendered in the criminal action. The civil

following grounds;

action

(1) there is no prejudicial question in this case

institution of the criminal action. In this

as the rescission of the contract upon which the

case,

bouncing checks were issued is a separate and

Sandiganbayan ahead of the complaint in Civil

distinct issue from the issue of whether private

Case filed by the State with the RTC. Thus, no

respondent violated BP 22; and (2) Section 7,

prejudicial question exists. The Resolution of the

Rule 111 of the Rules of Court states that one of

Civil

the elements of a prejudicial question is that

criminal

action

before
must

be

and
final

Not

requires

judgment

instituted

the Information

Case Is

which

was

can

prior
filed

Determinative

to

with

of

a
be

the
the

the

Prosecution of the Criminal Action. Even if the

.-Sarmiento was dropped from the information and

trial court in the civil case declares that the

Limpin was convicted. The judgment did not contain

construction agreement between the parties is

an award of civil liability.

void for lack of consideration, this would not

-Later a separate complaint for sum of money was filed

affect the prosecution of private respondent in

against Sarmiento and Limpin.

the criminal case. The fact of the matter is

TC and CA:

that private respondent issued checks which

-Rendered judgment in favour of associated Banking

were subsequently dishonored for insufficient

with respect to Sarmiento, who was dropped as an

funds.

accused

It

is

this

fact

that

is

subject

of

in

the

criminal

action,

it

cannot

prosecution under BP 22.Therefore, it is clear

in anyway, bar the filing by Associated Banking

that the second element required for the

Corporation of the present civil action against

existence of a prejudicial question, is absent.

him.

Thus, no prejudicial question exists

ISSUE:
Whether or not the right to claim for civil liability is

- Sarmiento v. CA 394 SCRA 315

already barred on the ground that the same was NOT

RESEREVED but in fact already instituted in the

FACTS:

Limpin and Apostol, doing business under the name

and style of Davao Libra Industrial Sales, filed an
application for an Irrevocable Domestic Letter of Credit
with the Associated Banking Corporation in favor of LS
Parts Hardware and machine shop for the purchase of
assorted scrap irons
.-The application was approved.
-There after, a trust receipt was executed by Limpin
and Apostol, which was also signed by Lorenzo
Sarmiento Jr as surety.
- The scrap irons were loaded on board a barge owned
and operated by Luzon Stevedoring for shipment to
Toledo Atlas Pier in Cebu, but the barge capsized
while on its way.
-On due dates, demands were made for
them to comply but Limpin and Apostol
failed to comply with their undertaking under
the Trust Receipt.
-A complaint for violation of Trust receipt was filed

criminal action PREVIOUSLY filed.

HELD:
-The claim for civil liability is not yet barred.
-The Entrusters complaint against entrustee was
based on the failure of the latter to comply with their
obligation as spelled out in the Trust Receipt
executed by them. This breach of obligation is
separate

and

distinct

from

criminal liability for misuse

any
and/or

misappropriation
of goods or proceeds realized from
the sale of goods, documents or instruments
released
under

under

Section

trust
13

receipts,

of

the

punishable

Trust

Receipts

Law( P. D . 1 1 5 ) i n re l a t i o n t o A r t i c l e 3 1 5 (
1 ) , ( b ) o f t h e Re v i s e d Pe n a l C o d e . B e i n
g b a s e d o n a n o b l i g a t i o n ex contractu
and not
ex delicto
,

the

civil

action

may

proceed

independently of the criminal proceedings

instituted against petitioners regardless of the result

was impliedly instituted with the criminal case,

of the latter.

and the dismissal of the criminal case carried

[G.R. No. 122150. March 17, 2003]

with it the dismissal of the suit for damages,

notwithstanding the fact that the dismissal was

HAMBON VS. CA

provisional as it amounted to an acquittal and

had the effect of an adjudication on the
merits. [10]

FACTS:

Hence,

On June 6, 1989, the petitioner filed before

the Regional Trial Court of Baguio (Branch 6), a

herein

petition

for

review

on

certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

complaint for damages for the injuries and

expenses he sustained after the truck driven by
the respondent bumped him on the night of

ISSUE:

December

thereto,

whether or not a civil case for damages based

respondent contended that the criminal case

on an independent civil action falling under

arising from the same incident, Criminal Case

article 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the new civil code

No. 2049 for Serious Physical Injuries thru

be

Reckless Imprudence, earlier filed on January 8,

reservation

9,

1985.In

answer

1986, had already been provisionally dismissed

by the Municipal Trial Court of Tuba, Benguet on

duly

dismissed

for

failure

to

make

HELD:

March 23, 1987, due to petitioners lack of

Petitioner filed the complaint for damages on

interest; and that the dismissal was with respect

June 6, 1989. Hence, Section 1, Rule 111 of the

to

1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended

both

criminal

and

civil

liabilities

of

in 1988, is the prevailing and governing law in

respondent.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered
a decision, dated December 18, 1991, ruling
that the civil case was not barred by the
dismissal
petitioner

of
is

the

criminal

entitled

case,
to

and

that

damages. The

this case, viz.:

SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil
actions. When a criminal action is instituted, the
civil action for the recovery of civil liability is
impliedly instituted with the criminal action,
unless the offended party waives the civil

dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads:

action,
On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in its
decision

promulgated

on

March

8,

1995,reversed and set aside the decision of the

trial court, and dismissed petitioners complaint
for damages.
According to the appellate court, since the
petitioner did not make any reservation to
institute a separate civil action for damages, it

reserves

his

right

to

institute

it

separately, or institutes the civil action prior to

the criminal action.
Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity
under the Revised Penal Code, and damages
under Article 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines arising from the same
act or omission of the accused.

Under the foregoing rule, civil actions to recover

petitioner filed a Demurrer to Evidence with

liability arising from crime (ex delicto) and

Leave

under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil

judgment acquitting the petitioner of the crime

Code

charged but ordering her to pay, as payment of

(quasi-delict) are

instituted

with

the

deemed

criminal

impliedly

action

unless

waived, reserved or previously instituted.

requires reservation of the civil action.

reservation

non before

any

is
of

qua

independent

civil

actions can be instituted and thereafter have a

continuous

determination

apart

The

trial

court

rendered

her purchase. The petitioner filed a motion for

decision with a plea that she be allowed to
present evidence pursuant to Rule 33 of the
Rules of Court, but the court denied the motion.

condition sine

these

Court.

reconsideration on the civil aspect of the

The 1988 amendment of the rule explicitly

Prior

of

from

or

simultaneous with the criminal action.

Issue:
1) Does the acquittal of the accused in the
criminal offense prevent a judgment against her
on

the

civil

aspect

of

the

case?

Held:
1) The rule on the Criminal Procedure provides
that the extension of the penal action does not
ANAMER

SALAZAR

BROTHERS
G.R.

No.

VS.

PEOPLE

AND

MARKETING
151931,

September

23,

J.Y.

carry with it the extension of the civil action.

CORP.

Hence, the acquittal of the accused does not

2003

prevent a judgment against him on the civil

aspect of the case where a) the acquittal is

Facts:

based

Petitioner

Anamer

Salazar

purchased

300

cavans of rice from J.Y. Brothers Marketing. As

payment for these, she gave a check drawn
against the Prudential Bank by one Nena
Timario. J.Y. accepted the check upon the
petitioners assurance that it was good check.

on

reasonable

doubt

as

only

preponderance of evidence is required; b)

where the court declared that the liability of the
accused is only civil; c) where the civil liability
of the accused does not arise from or is not
based upon the crime of which the accused was
acquitted.

Upon presentment, the check was dishonored

If the accused is acquitted on reasonable doubt

because it was drawn under a closed account.

but the court renders judgment on the civil

Upon

dishonor,

aspect of the criminal case, the prosecution

petitioner replaced the check drawn against the

cannot appeal from the judgment of acquittal as

Solid Bank, which, however, was returned with

it

the word DAUD (Drawn against uncollected

jeopardy. However, the aggrieved party, the

deposit).

offended party or the accused or both may

being

informed

of

such

After the prosecution rested its case, the

would

place

the

accused

in

double

appeal from the judgment on the civil aspect of

4. On March 17, 1994, after the separation from

the case within the period therefor.

the service of Mr. Luis L. Co, Ms. Amelita F.

Bautista demanded from him the transfer of the

Thereafter, the court shall render judgment on

subject

the civil aspect of the case on the basis of the

in

the

name

of

the

corporation

evidence of the prosecution and the accused.

In this case, the petitioner was charged
with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of
the Revised Penal Code. The civil action arising
from the delict was impliedly instituted since
there was no waiver by the private offended
party of the civil liability nor a reservation of the
civil action. Neither did he file a civil action
before the institution of the criminal action.
First Holdings Producers, Inc. v. Luis Co, GR no.
139655, July 27, 2000

5. Despite his duty to assign the certificate back

to the corporation and the subject demand, Mr.
LUIS L. CO, on April 26, 1994, instead registered
the loss of the said proprietary share with
Manila Polo Club Inc. by executing a false
Affidavit of Loss and subsequently, he was able
to secure a replacement certificate No. 4454 in
his name
6. In so doing, Mr. Luis L. Co misrepresented
himself to be the legitimate owner of subject
share

(MAIN ISSUE IS PREJUDICIAL QUESTION PRO SA

SYLLABUS NI FISCAL CIVIL LIABILITY)

9. Despite subject demand, Mr. Luis L. Co failed

and [has] continuously fail[ed] to deliver the

FACTS:

subject certificate to the corporation and to

1."On March 13, 1997, Armand M. Luna filed a

criminal

certificate

complaint

for

estafa

and

perjury

against [herein respondent] Luis L. Co in the

execute a Deed of Assignment in favor of the

nominee of the corporation to the damage and
prejudice of the latter;

Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila,

ISSUE:

2.....On November 25, 1997, in the regular

Whether or not the filing of civil case was

meeting of the Board of Directors of the

dilatory.

Producers Bank of the Philippines held at

HELD:

Manhattan

Bldg.

Nueva

resolution

was

adopted

Street,

Manila,

authorizing

a
the

corporation to purchase three (3) proprietary

shares of Manila Polo Club to be placed in the
names of Messrs. Co Bun Chun, Henry Co and
Luis Co to be held by them on behalf of the
corporation.

The criminal action for estafa had been lodged

with the Office of the City Prosecutor on March
13, 1997. Yet, respondent filed the civil case
only eight months later, on November 18, 1997.
Indeed, as early as 1994, a written demand had
already been served on him to return the said
share. He did not contest petitioners claim; in

3. In accordance with said resolution, the

fact, he filed the present civil action several

corporation purchased said proprietary shares

months after the institution of the criminal

in the name of the nominees

charge. Verily, it is apparent that the civil action

was instituted only as an afterthought to delay

the proceedings in the criminal case.
The

dilatory

character

of

the

strategy

of

respondent is apparent from the fact that he

could have raised the issue of ownership in the
criminal case. He himself admits that the issue
of ownership may be raised in the estafa case.
Yet, he resorts to subterfuge, arguing:
"x x x. The resolution of the issue of ownership
in Criminal Case No. 97-734 would only be for
the

purpose

of

determining

the

guilt

or

innocence of the respondent. The said issue

may not be resolved with finality in the same
criminal proceedings, since the court a quo
would be bound by what appears on the face of
the Manila Polo Club Proprietary Membership
Certificate No. 203. Considering that the subject
Membership Certificate clearly shows that the
same

is

registered

in

the

name

of

the

respondent, the same is conclusive evidence of

his ownership."
This argument is bereft of merit. We find no
sufficient reason why the trial court hearing the
criminal case cannot resolve the question of
ownership. Significantly, the civil action for
recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with
the filing of the criminal action. Hence, respondent
may invoke all defenses pertaining to his civil
liability in the criminal action. In fact, there is no
law

or

rule

prohibiting

him

from

airing

exhaustively the question of ownership. After

all, the trial court has jurisdiction to hear the
said

defense.

The

rules

of

evidence

and

procedure for the recovery of civil liabilities are

the same in both criminal and civil cases.