Professional Documents
Culture Documents
When respondent presented petitioners checks to the drawee banks for payment, the
bank dishonored the checks for insufficiency of funds and/or account closed. Consequently,
respondent made oral and written demands for petitioner to make good the
checks. However, petitioner failed to pay despite demands.
In December 1992, on the basis of a complaint-affidavit filed by respondent Philippines
Today, Inc., assistant city prosecutor of Manila Jacinto A. de los Reyes, Jr. filed with the
Regional Trial Court, Manila eleven informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22
against petitioner.[4]
Three years later, or on October 11, 1995, petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court,
Negros Occidental at Himamaylan, a complaint against Philippines Today, Inc. for specific
performance, recovery of overpayment and damages.[5]
On October 11, 1995, petitioner also filed with the Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch
42, a motion to suspend trial in the criminal cases against him based on a prejudicial
question.[6]
On November 27, 1995, the trial court denied petitioners motion to suspend trial based
on a prejudicial question.[7]
On December 20, 1995, petitioner filed with the trial court a motion for reconsideration
of the denial.[8]
On January 9, 1996, the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration. [9]
Hence, this petition.[10]
The Issue
Whether or not a prejudicial question exists to warrant the suspension of the trial of the
criminal cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 against petitioner until after the
resolution of the civil action for specific performance, recovery of overpayment, and
damages.
The Courts Ruling
raised in the civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be
determined; and (3) jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal. [13]
In this case, the issue in the criminal cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 is
whether the accused knowingly issued worthless checks. The issue in the civil action for
specific performance, overpayment, and damages is whether complainant Sabandal
overpaid his obligations to Philippines Today, Inc. If, after trial in the civil case, petitioner is
shown to have overpaid respondent, it does not follow that he cannot be held liable for the
bouncing checks he issued, for the mere issuance of worthless checks with knowledge of the
insufficiency of funds to support the checks is itself an offense. [18]
Furthermore, the peculiar circumstances of the case clearly indicate that the filing of the
civil case was a ploy to delay the resolution of the criminal cases. Petitioner filed the civil
case three years after the institution of the criminal charges against him. Apparently, the
civil action was instituted as an afterthought to delay the proceedings in the criminal cases.
Petitioners claim of overpayment to respondent may be raised as a defense during the
trial of the cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 charged against him. The civil
action for recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the filing of the criminal action.
[19]
Hence, petitioner may invoke all defenses pertaining to his civil liability in the criminal
action.[20]
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby DISMISSES the petition for lack of merit.
appears from the records that the delay of delivery of the motor vehicles by Lagos to Saag
Corporation is by reason of his contention that the demand made by Omictin and Atty. Tan to
him to return the subject vehicles is not a valid demand. As earlier mentioned, petitioner
filed a case with the SEC questioning therein private respondents appointment. If the SEC
should rule that the dissolution of Saag Phils. is proper, or that the appointments of private
respondents are invalid, the criminal case will eventually be dismissed due to the absence of
one of the essential elements of the crime of estafa. Based on the foregoing, it is clear that a
prejudicial question exists which calls for the suspension of the criminal proceedings before
the lower court.
ISSUE: WON A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION EXISTS TO WARRANT THE SUSPENSION OF THE
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING THE RESOLUTION OF THE INTRA-CORPORATE
CONTROVERSY THAT WAS ORIGINALLY FILED WITH THE SEC. HELD: YES
Ultimately, the resolution of the issues raised in the intra-corporate dispute will determine
the guilt or innocence of private respondent in the crime of estafa filed against him by
petitioner before the RTC of Makati. Since the alleged offended party is Saag Phils., Inc., the
validity of the demand for the delivery of the subject vehicles rests upon the authority of the
person making such a demand on the companys behalf. Private respondent is challenging
Omictins authority to act for Saag Phils., Inc. in the corporate case pending before the RTC
of Mandaluyong. Taken in this light, if the supposed authority of petitioner is found to be
defective, it is as if no demand was ever made, hence, the prosecution for estafa cannot
prosper. By analogy, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction may be applied in this case. The
issues raised by petitioner particularly the status of Saag Phils., Inc.
Saag (S) Pte. Ltd., as well as the question regarding the supposed authority of the latter to
make a demand on behalf of the company, are proper subjects for the determination of the
tribunal hearing the intra-corporate case which in this case is the RTC of Mandaluyong.
These issues would have been referred to the expertise of the SEC in accordance with the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction had the case not been transferred to the RTC of
Mandaluyong.
Ocampo v. Buenaventura
Case No. 88
G.R. No. L-32293 (January 24, 1974)
FACTS:
On September 11, 1966 the Cebu Police Department arrested and detained
Edgardo Ocampo and other minors for an alleged violation of Ordinance No. 228
which fixed curfew hours. The minors were then convicted for violation of said
ordinance. On appeal, the minors were acquitted since the reason they violated the
ordinance was to attend a birthday, which is considered as a wholesome
assemblage, and therefore falls under the exception to the curfew rule. Roberto
Ocampo filed a complaint against the Respondents for serious misconduct, grave
abuse of authority, and commission of a felony. The Mayor issued an ordinance
exonerating the policemen. On March 17, 1969 a complaint was lodged with the
Police Commission for the same grounds.
ISSUE:
W/N the Mayor can decide or investigate on administrative cases involving