You are on page 1of 1

Christell Marie B.

Rosales LLB 2 August 5, 2017

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Cases on Prejudicial Question

People vs Arambulo

A case was filed by corporate officers questioning the validity of the elections of the new officers.
The new set of officers filed a criminal case for estafa under Art 315, par 1(b) against the previous officers
for alleged failure to remit to the corporation certain corporate funds. It was held that the civil case posed a
prejudicial question that should first be resolved before the criminal action is to be pursued.

The first case filed prayed for the nullification of the election of the new set of directors and officers.
Essentially, ruled the Court, the issue is the authority of the aforesaid officers to act for and in behalf of the
corporation. On the other hand, the issue in the criminal case pertains to whether respondents committed
estafa. Under Art. 315, paragraph 1(b) of the RPC, one of the essential elements of estafa with abuse of
confidence is that there is demand by the offended party to the offender. The elements of demand and
misappropriation bear relevance to the validity of the demand for the delivery rests upon the authority of
the person making such a demand on the companys behalf. If the supposed authority of the person making
the demands is found to be defective, it is as if no demand was ever made, hence the prosecution for estafa
cannot prosper.

JM Dominguez Agronomic Company, Inc, vs Liclican

The petitioners filed against the respondents an action to nullify the latters election as corporate
directors and officers. The petitioners then took hold of the corporate properties and represented themselves
to the corporations clients to be the true and lawful directors of the corporation. They also initiated the
filing of the criminal information against the respondents for allegedly withdrawing funds from the saving
account of the corporation. The RTC Judge of the court in which the criminal action was filed, issued a
warrant of arrest against the respondents who lodged a petition for certiorari to nullify the order of arrest.
The petition was anchored on the existence of a prejudicial question. The respondents assert, that the
petitioners, by initiating the filing of a criminal action, already assumed that they are the legitimate directors
of the corporation despite the existence of a case aimed at resolving which between the contesting group of
directors should rightfully manage the corporation.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the respondents and found the order of the RTC Judge a proper
object of a certiorari proceeding because of the existence of a prejudicial question. The Supreme Court, on
appeal by the petitioners, affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals. The held that the RTC judge ought
to have suspended the criminal proceedings instead of issuing an arrest order.

You might also like