8/27/2017 G.R. No.

184861

TodayisSunday,August27,2017

Custom Search

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

THIRDDIVISION

G.R.No.184861June30,2009

DREAMWORKCONSTRUCTION,INC.,Petitioner,
vs.
CLEOFES.JANIOLAandHON.ARTHURA.FAMINI,Respondents.

DECISION

VELASCO,JR.,J.:

TheCase

PetitionerDreamworkConstruction,Inc.seeksthereversaloftheAugust26,2008Decision1inSCANo.080005of
theRegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch253inLasPiasCity.TheDecisionaffirmedtheOrdersdatedOctober16,
20072andMarch12,20083inCriminalCaseNos.5555461issuedbytheMetropolitanTrialCourt(MTC),Branch
79inLasPiasCity.

TheFacts

OnOctober18,2004,petitioner,throughitsPresident,RobertoS.Concepcion,andVicePresidentforFinanceand
Marketing,NormandyP.Amora,filedaComplaintAffidavitdatedOctober5,20044forviolationofBatasPambansa
Bilang22(BP22)againstprivaterespondentCleofeS.JaniolawiththeOfficeoftheCityProsecutorofLasPias
City. The case was docketed as I.S. No. 04252633. Correspondingly, petitioner filed a criminal information for
violationofBP22againstprivaterespondentwiththeMTConFebruary2,2005docketedasCriminalCaseNos.
5555461,entitledPeopleofthePhilippinesv.CleofeS.Janiola.

OnSeptember20,2006,privaterespondent,joinedbyherhusband,institutedacivilcomplaintagainstpetitionerby
filingaComplaintdatedAugust20065fortherescissionofanallegedconstructionagreementbetweentheparties,
aswellasfordamages.ThecasewasfiledwiththeRTC,Branch197inLasPiasCityanddocketedasCivilCase
No.LP060197.Notably,thechecks,subjectofthecriminalcasesbeforetheMTC,wereissuedinconsiderationof
theconstructionagreement.

Thereafter, on July 25, 2007, private respondent filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings dated July 24, 20076in
Criminal Case Nos. 5555461, alleging that the civil and criminal cases involved facts and issues similar or
intimately related such that in the resolution of the issues in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused
wouldnecessarilybedetermined.Inotherwords,privaterespondentclaimedthatthecivilcaseposedaprejudicial
questionasagainstthecriminalcases.

PetitioneropposedthesuspensionoftheproceedingsinthecriminalcasesinanundatedComment/Oppositionto
Accuseds Motion to Suspend Proceedings based on Prejudicial Question7 on the grounds that: (1) there is no
prejudicialquestioninthiscaseastherescissionofthecontractuponwhichthebouncingcheckswereissuedisa
separateanddistinctissuefromtheissueofwhetherprivaterespondentviolatedBP22and(2)Section7,Rule111
oftheRulesofCourtstatesthatoneoftheelementsofaprejudicialquestionisthat"thepreviouslyinstitutedcivil
actioninvolvesanissuesimilarorintimatelyrelatedtotheissueraisedinthesubsequentcriminalaction"thus,this
elementismissinginthiscase,thecriminalcasehavingprecededthecivilcase.

Later, the MTC issued its Order dated October 16, 2007, granting the Motion to Suspend Proceedings, and
reasonedthat:

Shouldthetrialcourtdeclaretherescissionofcontractandthenullificationofthechecksissuedasthesameare
withoutconsideration,thentheinstantcriminalcasesforallegedviolationofBP22mustbedismissed.Thebelated
filingofthecivilcasebythehereinaccuseddidnotdetractfromthecorrectnessofhercause,sinceamotionfor

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_184861_2009.html 1/7
8/27/2017 G.R. No. 184861
suspensionofacriminalactionmaybefiledatanytimebeforetheprosecutionrests(Section6,Rule111,Revised
RulesofCourt).8

InanOrderdatedMarch12,2008,9theMTCdeniedpetitionersMotionforReconsiderationdatedNovember29,
2007.

Petitioner appealed the Orders to the RTC with a Petition dated May 13, 2008. Thereafter, the RTC issued the
assailed decision dated August 26, 2008, denying the petition. On the issue of the existence of a prejudicial
question,theRTCruled:

Additionally,itmustbestressedthattherequirementofa"previously"filedcivilcaseisintendedmerelytoobviate
delaysintheconductofthecriminalproceedings.Incidentally,noclearevidenceofanyintenttodelaybyprivate
respondentwasshown.Thecriminalproceedingsarestillintheirinitialstageswhenthecivilactionwasinstituted.
And,thefactthatthecivilactionwasfiledafterthecriminalactionwasinstituteddoesnotrendertheissuesinthe
civilactionanylessprejudicialincharacter.10

Hence,wehavethispetitionunderRule45.

TheIssue

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT PERCEIVING GRAVE
ABUSEOFDISCRETIONONTHEPARTOFTHEINFERIORCOURT,WHENTHELATTERRULED
TOSUSPENDPROCEEDINGSINCRIM.CASENOS.5555461ONTHEBASISOF"PREJUDICIAL
QUESTION"INCIVILCASENO.LP060197.11

TheCourtsRuling

Thispetitionmustbegranted.

TheCivilActionMustPrecedetheFilingofthe

CriminalActionforaPrejudicialQuestiontoExist

Underthe1985RulesonCriminalProcedure,asamendedbySupremeCourtResolutionsdatedJune17,1988and
July7,1988,theelementsofaprejudicialquestionarecontainedinRule111,Sec.5,whichstates:

SEC.5.Elementsofprejudicialquestion.Thetwo(2)essentialelementsofaprejudicialquestionare:(a)thecivil
actioninvolvesanissuesimilarorintimatelyrelatedtotheissueraisedinthecriminalactionand(b)theresolution
ofsuchissuedetermineswhetherornotthecriminalactionmayproceed.

Thus,theCourthasheldinnumerouscases12thattheelementsofaprejudicialquestion,asstatedintheabove
quotedprovisionandinBeltranv.People,13are:

The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting decisions. It has two essential
elements:(a)thecivilactioninvolvesanissuesimilarorintimatelyrelatedtotheissueraisedinthecriminalaction
and(b)theresolutionofsuchissuedetermineswhetherornotthecriminalactionmayproceed.

OnDecember1,2000,the2000RulesonCriminalProcedure,however,becameeffectiveandtheaboveprovision
wasamendedbySec.7ofRule111,whichapplieshereandnowprovides:

SEC.7.Elementsofprejudicialquestion.Theelementsofaprejudicialquestionare:(a)thepreviouslyinstituted
civilactioninvolvesanissuesimilarorintimatelyrelatedtotheissueraisedinthesubsequentcriminalaction,and
(b)theresolutionofsuchissuedetermineswhetherornotthecriminalactionmayproceed.(Emphasissupplied.)

Petitioner interprets Sec. 7(a) to mean that in order for a civil case to create a prejudicial question and, thus,
suspendacriminalcase,itmustfirstbeestablishedthatthecivilcasewasfiledprevioustothefilingofthecriminal
case.This,petitionerargues,isspecificallytoguardagainstthesituationwhereinapartywouldbelatedlyfileacivil
actionthatisrelatedtoapendingcriminalactioninordertodelaytheproceedingsinthelatter.

Ontheotherhand,privaterespondentcitesArticle36oftheCivilCodewhichprovides:

Art. 36. Prejudicial questions which must be decided before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or may
proceed,shallbegovernedbyrulesofcourtwhichtheSupremeCourtshallpromulgateandwhichshallnotbein
conflictwiththeprovisionsofthisCode.(Emphasissupplied.)

Privaterespondentarguesthatthephrase"beforeanycriminalprosecutionmaybeinstitutedormayproceed"must
beinterpretedtomeanthataprejudicialquestionexistswhenthecivilactionisfiledeitherbeforetheinstitutionof
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_184861_2009.html 2/7
8/27/2017 G.R. No. 184861
the criminal action or during the pendency of the criminal action. Private respondent concludes that there is an
apparentconflictintheprovisionsoftheRulesofCourtandtheCivilCodeinthatthelatterconsidersacivilcaseto
havepresentedaprejudicialquestionevenifthecriminalcaseprecededthefilingofthecivilcase.

Wecannotagreewithprivaterespondent.

Firstoff,itisabasicpreceptinstatutoryconstructionthata"changeinphraseologybyamendmentofaprovisionof
lawindicatesalegislativeintenttochangethemeaningoftheprovisionfromthatitoriginallyhad."14Intheinstant
case,thephrase,"previouslyinstituted,"wasinsertedtoqualifythenatureofthecivilactioninvolvedinaprejudicial
questioninrelationtothecriminalaction.Thisinterpretationisfurtherbuttressedbytheinsertionof"subsequent"
directlybeforethetermcriminalaction.Thereisnootherlogicalexplanationfortheamendmentsexcepttoqualify
therelationshipofthecivilandcriminalactions,thatthecivilactionmustprecedethecriminalaction.

Thus,thisCourtruledinTorresv.Garchitorena15that:

Even if we ignored petitioners procedural lapse and resolved their petition on the merits, we hold that
Sandiganbayan did not abuse its discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in denying their omnibus
motionforthesuspensionoftheproceedingspendingfinaljudgmentinCivilCaseNo.7160.Section6,Rulelllof
theRulesofCriminalProcedure,asamended,reads:

Sec.6.Suspensionbyreasonofprejudicialquestion.Apetitionforsuspensionofthecriminalactionbasedupon
the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court
conducting the preliminary investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition to
suspendshallbefiledinthesamecriminalactionatanytimebeforetheprosecutionrests.

Sec.7.Elementsofprejudicialquestion.Theelementsofaprejudicialquestionare:(a)thepreviouslyinstituted
civilactioninvolvesanissuesimilarorintimatelyrelatedtotheissueraisedinthesubsequentcriminalaction,and
(b)theresolutionofsuchissuedetermineswhetherornotthecriminalactionmayproceed.

Undertheamendment,aprejudicialquestionisunderstoodinlawasthatwhichmustprecedethecriminalaction
and which requires a decision before a final judgment can be rendered in the criminal action with which said
questioniscloselyconnected.Thecivilactionmustbeinstitutedpriortotheinstitutionofthecriminalaction.Inthis
case,theInformationwasfiledwiththeSandiganbayanaheadofthecomplaintinCivilCaseNo.7160filedbythe
StatewiththeRTCinCivilCaseNo.7160.Thus,noprejudicialquestionexists.(Emphasissupplied.)

Additionally,itisaprincipleinstatutoryconstructionthat"astatuteshouldbeconstruednotonlytobeconsistent
withitselfbutalsotoharmonizewithotherlawsonthesamesubjectmatter,astoformacomplete,coherentand
intelligible system."16 This principle is consistent with the maxim, interpretare et concordare leges legibus est
optimusinterpretandimodusoreverystatutemustbesoconstruedandharmonizedwithotherstatutesastoforma
uniformsystemofjurisprudence.17 1avvphil

Inotherwords,everyeffortmustbemadetoharmonizeseeminglyconflictinglaws.Itisonlywhenharmonizationis
impossiblethatresortmustbemadetochoosingwhichlawtoapply.

In the instant case, Art. 36 of the Civil Code and Sec. 7 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court are susceptible of an
interpretationthatwouldharmonizebothprovisionsoflaw.Thephrase"previouslyinstitutedcivilaction"inSec.7of
Rule 111 is plainly worded and is not susceptible of alternative interpretations. The clause "before any criminal
prosecutionmaybeinstitutedormayproceed"inArt.36oftheCivilCodemay,however,beinterpretedtomean
that the motion to suspend the criminal action may be filed during the preliminary investigation with the public
prosecutororcourtconductingtheinvestigation,orduringthetrialwiththecourthearingthecase.

ThisinterpretationwouldharmonizeArt.36oftheCivilCodewithSec.7ofRule111oftheRulesofCourtbutalso
withSec.6ofRule111oftheCivilCode,whichprovidesforthesituationswhenthemotiontosuspendthecriminal
actionduringthepreliminaryinvestigationorduringthetrialmaybefiled.Sec.6provides:

SEC.6.Suspensionbyreasonofprejudicialquestion.Apetitionforsuspensionofthecriminalactionbasedupon
the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court
conducting the preliminary investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition to
suspendshallbefiledinthesamecriminalactionatanytimebeforetheprosecutionrests.

Thus,undertheprinciplesofstatutoryconstruction,itisthisinterpretationofArt.36oftheCivilCodethatshould
governinordertogiveeffecttoalltherelevantprovisionsoflaw.

Itbearspointingoutthatthecircumstancespresentintheinstantcaseindicatethatthefilingofthecivilactionand
thesubsequentmovetosuspendthecriminalproceedingsbyreasonofthepresenceofaprejudicialquestionwere
amereafterthoughtandinstitutedtodelaythecriminalproceedings.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_184861_2009.html 3/7
8/27/2017 G.R. No. 184861

InSabandalv.Tongco,18wefoundnoprejudicialquestionexistedinvolvingacivilactionforspecificperformance,
overpayment, and damages, and a criminal complaint for BP 22, as the resolution of the civil action would not
determinetheguiltorinnocenceoftheaccusedinthecriminalcase.Inresolvingthecase,wesaid:

Furthermore, the peculiar circumstances of the case clearly indicate that the filing of the civil case was a ploy to
delaytheresolutionofthecriminalcases.Petitionerfiledthecivilcasethreeyearsaftertheinstitutionofthecriminal
charges against him. Apparently, the civil action was instituted as an afterthought to delay the proceedings in the
criminalcases.19

Here, the civil case was filed two (2) years after the institution of the criminal complaint and from the time that
privaterespondentallegedlywithdrewitsequipmentfromthejobsite.Also,itisworthnotingthatthecivilcasewas
institutedmorethantwoandahalf(2)yearsfromthetimethatprivaterespondentallegedlystoppedconstruction
of the proposed building for no valid reason. More importantly, the civil case praying for the rescission of the
construction agreement for lack of consideration was filed more than three (3) years from the execution of the
constructionagreement.

Evidently,asinSabandal,thecircumstancessurroundingthefilingofthecasesinvolvedhereshowthatthefilingof
thecivilactionwasamereafterthoughtonthepartofprivaterespondentandinterposedfordelay.Andascorrectly
arguedbypetitioner,itisthisscenariothatSec.7ofRule111oftheRulesofCourtseekstoprevent.Thus,private
respondentspositionscannotbelefttostand.

TheResolutionoftheCivilCaseIsNot
DeterminativeoftheProsecutionoftheCriminalAction

In any event, even if the civil case here was instituted prior to the criminal action, there is, still, no prejudicial
questiontospeakofthatwouldjustifythesuspensionoftheproceedingsinthecriminalcase.

To reiterate, the elements of a prejudicial question under Sec. 7 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court are: (1) the
previouslyinstitutedcivilactioninvolvesanissuesimilarorintimatelyrelatedtotheissueraisedinthesubsequent
criminalactionand(2)theresolutionofsuchissuedetermineswhetherornotthecriminalactionmayproceed.

Petitionerarguesthatthesecondelementofaprejudicialquestion,asprovidedinSec.7ofRule111oftheRules,
isabsentinthiscase.Thus,suchrulecannotapplytothepresentcontroversy.

Privaterespondent,ontheotherhand,claimsthatiftheconstructionagreementbetweenthepartiesisdeclarednull
andvoidforwantofconsideration,thechecksissuedinconsiderationofsuchcontractwouldbecomemerescraps
ofpaperandcannotbethebasisofacriminalprosecution.

Wefindforpetitioner.

ItmustberememberedthattheelementsofthecrimepunishableunderBP22areasfollows:

(1)themaking,drawing,andissuanceofanychecktoapplyforaccountorforvalue

(2)theknowledgeofthemaker,drawer,orissuerthatatthetimeofissuetherearenosufficientfundsinor
creditwiththedraweebankforthepaymentofsuchcheckinfulluponitspresentmentand

(3)thesubsequentdishonorofthecheckbythedraweebankforinsufficiencyoffundsorcredit,ordishonor
forthesamereasonhadnotthedrawer,withoutanyvalidcause,orderedthebanktostoppayment.20

Undeniably,thefactthatthereexistsavalidcontractoragreementtosupporttheissuanceofthecheck/sorthatthe
checkswereissuedforvaluableconsiderationdoesnotmakeuptheelementsofthecrime.Thus,thisCourthas
heldinalonglineofcases21thattheagreementsurroundingtheissuanceofdishonoredchecksisirrelevanttothe
prosecutionforviolationofBP22.InMejiav.People,22weruled:

Itmust beemphasizedthatthe gravamenofthe offensechargeisthe issuanceof a bad check. The purpose for
whichthecheckwasissued,thetermsandconditionsrelatingtoitsissuance,oranyagreementsurroundingsuch
issuanceareirrelevanttotheprosecutionandconvictionofpetitioner.Todeterminethereasonforwhichchecksare
issued,orthetermsandconditionsfortheirissuance,willgreatlyerodethefaiththepublicreposesinthestability
andcommercialvalueofchecksascurrencysubstitutes,andbringhavocintradeandinbankingcommunities.The
clearintentionoftheframersofB.P.22istomakethemereactofissuingaworthlesscheckmalumprohibitum.

Lee v. Court of Appeals23 is even more poignant. In that case, we ruled that the issue of lack of valuable
considerationfortheissuanceofcheckswhichwerelaterondishonoredforinsufficientfundsisimmaterialtothe
successofaprosecutionforviolationofBP22,towit:

Thirdissue.Whetherornotthecheckwasissuedonaccountorforvalue.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_184861_2009.html 4/7
8/27/2017 G.R. No. 184861
Petitionersclaimisnotfeasible. Wehave heldthatuponissuanceof acheck,in the absence of evidence to the
contrary,itispresumedthatthesamewasissuedforvaluableconsideration.Valuableconsideration,inturn,may
consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the party who makes the contract, or some
forbearance,detriment,lossorsomeresponsibility,toact,orlabor,orservicegiven,sufferedorundertakenbythe
otherside.Itisanobligationtodo,ornottodoinfavorofthepartywhomakesthecontract,suchasthemakeror
indorser.

In this case, petitioner himself testified that he signed several checks in blank, the subject check included, in
exchange for 2.5% interest from the proceeds of loans that will be made from said account. This is a valuable
consideration for which the check was issued. That there was neither a preexisting obligation nor an obligation
incurredonthepartofpetitionerwhenthesubjectcheckwasgivenbyBautistatoprivatecomplainantonJuly24,
1993becausepetitionerwasnolongerconnectedwithUnladorBautistastartingJuly1989,cannotbegivenmerit
since,asearlierdiscussed,petitionerfailedtoadequatelyprovethathehasseveredhisrelationshipwithBautistaor
Unlad.

Atanyrate,wehaveheldthatwhatthelawpunishesisthemereactofissuingabouncingcheck,notthepurpose
forwhichitwasissuednorthetermsandconditionsrelatingtoitsissuance.Thisisbecausethethrustofthelawis
toprohibitthemakingofworthlesschecksandputtingthemintocirculation.24(Emphasissupplied.)

Verily,evenifthetrialcourtinthecivilcasedeclaresthattheconstructionagreementbetweenthepartiesisvoidfor
lackofconsideration,thiswouldnotaffecttheprosecutionofprivaterespondentinthecriminalcase.Thefactofthe
matteristhatprivaterespondentindeedissuedcheckswhichweresubsequentlydishonoredforinsufficientfunds.It
isthisfactthatissubjectofprosecutionunderBP22. lawphil.net

Therefore,itisclearthatthesecondelementrequiredfortheexistenceofaprejudicialquestion,thattheresolution
of the issue in the civil action would determine whether the criminal action may proceed, is absent in the instant
case.Thus,noprejudicialquestionexistsandtherulesonitareinapplicabletothecasebeforeus.

WHEREFORE, we GRANT this petition. We hereby REVERSE and SET ASIDE the August 26, 2008 Decision in
SCANo.080005oftheRTC,Branch253inLasPiasCityandtheOrdersdatedOctober16,2007andMarch12,
2008inCriminalCaseNos.5555461oftheMTC,Branch79inLasPiasCity.WeordertheMTCtocontinuewith
theproceedingsinCriminalCaseNos.5555461withdispatch.

Nocosts.

SOORDERED.

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassigned
tothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,andtheDivisionChairpersonsAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_184861_2009.html 5/7
8/27/2017 G.R. No. 184861
REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes

1Rollo,pp.8890.PennedbyJudgeSalvadorV.Timbang.

2Id.at6567.

3Id.at7576.

4Id.at2327.

5Id.at2841.

6Id.at4245.

7Id.at4648.

8Id.at67.

9Id.at7576.

10Id.at90.

11Id.at11.

12 Carlos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109887, February 10, 1997, 268 SCRA 25, 33 Tuanda v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 110544, October 17, 1995, 249 SCRA 342, 351 Apa v. Fernandez, G.R. No.
112381,March30,1995,242SCRA509,512Yapv.Paras,G.R.No.101236,January30,1994,205SCRA
625,629Umaliv.IAC,G.R.No.63198,June21,1990,186SCRA680,685.
13G.R.No.137567,June20,2000,334SCRA106,110.

14R.E.Agpalo,StatutoryConstruction97(4thed.,1998).

15G.R.No.153666,December27,2002,394SCRA494,508509.

16R.E.Agpalo,supranote14,at269270.

17Algurav.TheLocalGovernmentUnitoftheCityofNaga,G.R.No.150135,October30,2006,506SCRA
81,98Valenciav.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.122363,April29,2003,401SCRA666,68081Baaresv.
Balising, G.R. No. 132624, March 13, 2000, 328 SCRA 36, 49 Cabada v. Alunan III, G.R. No. 119645,
August22,1996,260SCRA838,848Republicv.Asuncion,G.R.No.108208,March11,1994,231SCRA
211Coronav.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.97356,September30,1992,214SCRA378,392.
18G.R.No.124498,October5,2001,366SCRA567.

19Id.at572.

20Mejiav.People,G.R.No.149937,June21,2007,525SCRA209,213214.

21Rigorv.People,G.R.No.144887,November17,2004,442SCRA451,461Nartev.CourtofAppeals,
G.R. No. 132552, July 14, 2004, 434 SCRA 336, 341 Lazaro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105461,
November11,1993,227SCRA723,726727,citingPeoplev.Nitafan,G.R.No.75954,October22,1992,
215SCRA79,8485andQuev.People,Nos.L7521718,September21,1987,154SCRA161,165.

22Supranote20,at214215.

23G.R.No.145498,January17,2005,448SCRA455.

24Id.at474475.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_184861_2009.html 6/7
8/27/2017 G.R. No. 184861

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_184861_2009.html 7/7