FIRST PRODUCERS HOLDINGS CORPORATION V. CO
Luis Co constitutes misappropriation or
A criminal proceeding, as a rule, may be suspended upon a showing that a
prejudicial question determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused is the
very issue to be decided in a civil case pending in another tribunal.
However, such suspension cannot be allowed if it is apparent that the civil action
was filed as an afterthought for the purpose of delaying the ongoing criminal action.
This exception applies especially in cases in which the trial court trying the criminal
action has authority to decide such issue, and the civil action was instituted merely
to delay the criminal proceeding and thereby multiply suits and vex the court system
with unnecessary cases. Procedural rules should be construed to promote
substantial justice, not to frustrate or delay its delivery.
FACTS:
1. 1997, Luna filed a complaint for estafa and perjury against Luis Co in the
Office of City Prosecutor Manila
- Resolution by the Board of Directors of the Producers Bank of the
Philippines --authorizing 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
- after the separation from the service of Mr. Luis L. Co, Ms. Amelita F.
Bautista demanded from him the transfer of the subject certificate in the
name of the corporation
- Despite his duty to assign the certificate back to the corporation and the
subject demand, Mr. LUIS L. CO, 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 after allegedly complying
with the legal requirements for the replacement of lost certificates.
- In so doing, Mr. Luis L. Co misrepresented himself to be the legitimate
owner of subject share and by executing a false affidavit, he made it
appear that Certificate No. 203 was lost despite the fact that said
certificate is existing and remains in possession of the corporation;
- value of said certificate is (P5,650,000.00) as of April 1996
- Despite subject demand, Mr. Luis L. Co failed and [has] continuously
fail[ed] to deliver the subject certificate to the corporation and to execute a
Deed of Assignment in favor of the nominee of the corporation to the
damage and prejudice of the latter;
- That said act of Mr.
conversion of something given to him in trust to the prejudice of the
bank;
2. City Prosecutor recommended the filing of estafa and perjury against [him].
Thus, the Office of the City Prosecutor filed [an] information for estafa against
[him] in the Regional Trial Court of Makati docketed as Criminal Case No. 97-
734 and another information for perjury was filed in the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Makati.
3. "On 1997, during the pendency of the criminal case, [Co] filed an action for
damages against Armand Luna and First Producers Holdings (complainant in
the criminal case filed) with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, and was
docketed as Civil Case No. 97-2663. In the said complaint, [he] claimed
ownership over questioned Manila Polo Club Proprietary Share No. 203.
4.
TC
Denied motion for suspension of case (Feb 27,1998
-
CA requisites for the existence of a prejudicial question were
present in the case at bar. Should the ownership of the share in
question be decided in favor of Luis Co, there would be no
basis for the charge of estafa against him.
- Respondents belated filing of the civil case did not detract from
the correctness of his cause, since a motion for suspension of a
criminal action based on the pendency of a prejudicial action
may be filed at any time before the prosecution rests.
ISSUE: WON THERE’S A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION
HELD:
Rule 111 "SEC. 5. Elements of prejudicial question. -- The two (2) essential
elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the civil action involves an issue
similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action;
(b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action
may proceed."
"SEC. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. -- A petition for
suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial
question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the fiscal or the court
conducting the preliminary investigation. When the criminal action has been
filed in court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal
action at any time before the prosecution rests."
NO PREJUDICIAL QUESTION—CIVIL CASE CLEARLY DILATORY
(1) True, the Motion to Suspend the criminal case on the ground that a prejudicial
question existed was raised “before the prosecution rested
(2) However, the peculiar circumstances of this case clearly show that it was
merely a ploy to delay the resolution of the criminal case and vex the already
overloaded court system with an unnecessary case.
(3) 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.
(4) Indeed, as early as 1994, a written demand had already been served on him to
return the said share.
(5) He did not contest petitioners claim; in fact, he filed the present civil action
several months after the institution of the criminal charge.
(6) Verily, it is apparent that the civil action was instituted only as an afterthought
to delay the proceedings in the criminal case.
(7) 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.
(8) We find no sufficient reason why the trial court hearing the criminal case
cannot resolve the question of ownership.
(9) Significantly, the civil action for recovery of civil liability is impliedly
instituted with the filing of the criminal action.[14]
(10) 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.
(11) Equally unmeritorious is respondents theory that the trial court trying the
criminal case would be bound by the Membership Certificate, which was
registered in his name and would thus be “conclusive evidence of his
ownership.”[16]
NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF CERTIFICATE
(12) Ownership Is Not Necessarily An Element of Estafa
(13) In any event, the issue of ownership is not a necessary element of estafa, as
held by the Court in
(14) Hernandez v. Court of Appeals, which we quote:"Ownership is not a necessary
element of the crime of estafa x x x. In estafa, the person prejudiced or the
immediate victim of the fraud need not be the owner of the goods. Thus,
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code provides that Any person who shall
defraud another (it does not say owner) by any means mentioned is that
the loss should have fallen on someone other than the perpetrators of the
crime. x x x"[17]
(15) Furthermore, to allow respondents stance is to open the floodgates, as it were,
to similar dilatory tactics. In this light, we reiterate hereunder our earlier
pronouncement:
SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES INC. vs PEREZ, Sep 4, 2013
FACTS:
1. Petitioner San Miguel Properties Inc. purchased from B.F. Homes, Inc. 2,130
residential lots situated in its subdivision BF Homes Parañaque.
- The transactions were embodied in three separate deeds of sale.
- The TCTs covering the lots bought under the first and second deeds were fully
delivered to San Miguel Properties, but 20 TCTs covering 20 of the 41 parcels
of land purchased under the third deed of sale, were not delivered to San
Miguel Properties.
2. On its part, BF Homes claimed that it withheld the delivery of the 20 TCTs
for parcels of land purchased under the third deed of sale because Atty.
Orendain had ceased to be its rehabilitation receiver at the time of the
transactions after being meanwhile replaced as receiver by FBO Network
Management, Inc. on May 17, 1989 pursuant to an order from the SEC.
3. BF Homes refused to deliver the 20 TCTs despite demands.
4. Thus, San Miguel Properties filed a complaint-affidavit in the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Las Piñas charging respondent directors and officers of BF
Homes with non-delivery of titles in violation of Section 25, in relation to
Section 39, both of Presidential Decree No. 957.
5. At the same time, San Miguel Properties sued BF Homes for specific
performance in the HLURB praying to compel BF Homes to release the 20
TCTs in its favor.
6. San Miguel Properties filed a motion to suspend proceedings in the OCP Las
Piñas, citing the pendency of BF Homes’ receivership case in the SEC. In its
comment/opposition, BF Homes opposed the motion to suspend.
7. In the meantime, however, the SEC terminated BF Homes’ receivership on
September 12, 2000, prompting San Miguel Properties to file on October 27,
2000 a reply to BF Homes’ comment/opposition coupled with a motion to
withdraw the sought suspension of proceedings due to the intervening
termination of the receivership.
8. The OCP Las Piñas rendered its resolution,
 OCP - dismissing San Miguel Properties’ criminal complaint
LasPinas for violation of Presidential Decree No. 957 on several
grounds,
- one of which was that there existed a prejudicial
question necessitating the suspension of the criminal
action until after the issue on the liability of the
distressed BF Homes was first determined by the SEC
en banc or by the HLURB.
MR - BF Homes’ directors and offciers could not be held
liable for the non-delivery of TCT under PD 957
without a definite ruling on the legality of
Atty.Orendain’s actions ;
- Criminal liability would attach only after BF Homes
did not comply with the directive of HLURB directing
it to deliver titles
CA - Dismissed San Miguel’s petition
- Rule on prejudicial question applies to civil and criminal
actions only
- EXCEPTION:
 Administrative case was considered a prejudicial
question ;
- All told, to sustain the petitioner’s theory that the result
of HLURB proceeding is not determinative of criminal
liability of PR under PD 957 – absurdity
ISSUE: Whether the HLURB administrative case brought to compel the delivery of
the TCTs could be a reason to suspend the proceedings on the criminal complaint for
the violation of Section 25 of Presidential Decree No. 957 on the ground of a
prejudicial question
RULING:
YES.
(1) A prejudicial question is understood in law to be that which arises in a case
the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in the
criminal case, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal
(2) . It is determinative of the criminal case, but the jurisdiction to try and resolve
it is lodged in another court or tribunal.
(3) It is based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but is so intimately
connected with the crime that it determines the guilt or innocence of the
accused.
(4) The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid
conflicting decisions.
(5) The determination of whether the proceedings ought to be suspended because
of a prejudicial question rested on whether the facts and issues raised in the
pleadings in the specific performance case were so related with the issues
raised in the criminal complaint for the violation of Presidential Decree No.
957, such that the resolution of the issues in the former would be
determinative of the question of guilt in the criminal case.
(6) An examination of the nature of the two cases involved is thus necessary.
(7) An action for specific performance is the remedy to demand the exact
performance of a contract in the specific form in which it was made, or
according to the precise terms agreed upon by a party bound to fulfill it.
- before the remedy of specific performance is availed of, there must first be a
breach of the contract.
(8) On the other hand, Presidential Decree No. 957 is a law that regulates the
sale of subdivision lots and condominiums in view of the increasing
number of incidents wherein "real estate subdivision owners, developers,
operators, and/or sellers have reneged on their representations and
obligations to provide and maintain properly" the basic requirements
and amenities, as well as of reports of alarming magnitude of swindling
and fraudulent manipulations perpetrated by unscrupulous subdivision
and condominium sellers and operators.
Specific action for specific performance in the HLURB would
Performance determine whether or not San Miguel Properties was legally
entitled to demand the delivery of the remaining 20 TCTs,
PD 957 criminal action would decide whether or not BF Homes’
directors and officers were criminally liable for withholding
the 20 TCTs.
(9) The resolution of the former must obviously precede that of the latter, for
should the HLURB hold San Miguel Properties to be not entitled to the
delivery of the 20 TCTs because Atty. Orendain did not have the
authority to represent BF Homes in the sale due to his receivership
having been terminated by the SEC, the basis for the criminal liability for
the violation of Section 25 of Presidential Decree No. 957 would
evaporate, thereby negating the need to proceed with the criminal case.
(10) Worthy to note at this juncture is that a prejudicial question need not
conclusively resolve the guilt or innocence of the accused.
(11) It is enough for the prejudicial question to simply test the sufficiency of the
allegations in the information in order to sustain the further prosecution of the
criminal case.
(12) A party who raises a prejudicial question is deemed to have hypothetically
admitted that all the essential elements of the crime have been adequately
alleged in the information, considering that the Prosecution has not yet
presented a single piece of evidence on the indictment or may not have rested
its case.
(13) A challenge to the allegations in the information on the ground of prejudicial
question is in effect a question on the merits of the criminal charge through a
non-criminal suit
 PIMENTEL vs. PIMENTEL, G.R. No. 172060, September 13, 2010
Facts:
1. Respondent, Maria Chrysantine Pimentel, filed an action for frustrated
parricide against petitioner, Joselito R. Pimentel.
2. The Information for Frustrated Parricide was dated 30 August 2004 and was
raffled to RTC Quezon City on 25 October 2004. The pre-trial and trial was set
on 14 February 2005.
3. She also filed on 5 November 2004, a petition, dated 4 November 2004, for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Section 36 of the Family Code on
the ground of psychological incapacity
4. Petitioner received summons to appear before the Regional Trial Court of
Antipolo City on 7 February 2005, for the pre-trial and trial of the Civil Case.
- He then filed an urgent motion to suspend the proceedings before the RTC
Quezon City on the ground of the existence of a prejudicial question
asserting that the relationship between the offender and the victim is a key
element in parricide, the outcome of Civil Case would have a bearing in the
criminal case filed against him before the RTC Quezon City.
RTC pendency of the case before the RTC Antipolo is not a
prejudicial question that warrants the suspension of the
criminal case before it.
CA also denied the petition holding that the issue in the criminal
case for frustrated parricide differs from the issue in the civil
action for annulment of marriage.
- even if the marriage between petitioner and
respondent would be declared void, it would be
immaterial to the criminal case because prior to the
declaration of nullity, the alleged acts constituting
the crime of frustrated parricide had already been
committed
- All that is required for the charge of frustrated
parricide is that at the time of the commission of
the crime, the marriage is still subsisting
Issue: Whether or not the resolution of the action for annulment of marriage is
a prejudicial question that warrants the suspension of the criminal case for
frustrated parricide.
Ruling:
(1) The elements of a prejudicial question under Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000
Rules on Criminal Procedure, which are: (a) the previously instituted civil
action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
subsequent criminal action and (b) the resolution of such issue determines
whether or not the criminal action may proceed, were not met.
(2) Civil action must be instituted first before the filing of the criminal action.
(3) In this case, the civil case for annulment was filed after the filing of the
criminal case for frustrated parricide.
(4) Further, the resolution of the civil action is not a prejudicial question that
would warrant the suspension of the criminal action.
(5) There is a prejudicial question when a civil action and a criminal action are both
pending, and there exists in the civil action an issue which must be preemptively
resolved before the criminal action may proceed because howsoever the issue
raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative of the guilt or
innocence of the accused in the criminal case.
(6) The relationship between the offender and the victim is a key element in
the crime of parricide. (punishes any person who shall kill his father,
mother or child)
(7) However, the issue in the annulment of marriage is not similar or
intimately related to the issue in the criminal case for parricide. Further,
the relationship between the offender and the victim is not determinative
of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Annulment whether petitioner is psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential
marital obligations.
Paricide whether the accused killed the victim. In this
case, since petitioner was charged with frustrated
parricide, the issue is whether he performed all
the acts of execution which would have killed
respondent as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of
causes independent of petitioner’s will.
(8) At the time of the commission of the alleged crime, petitioner and respondent
were married.
(9) The subsequent dissolution of their marriage, in case the petition in Civil Case
is granted, will have no effect on the alleged crime that was committed at the
time of the subsistence of the marriage.
(10) In short, even if the marriage between petitioner and respondent is annulled,
petitioner could still be held criminally liable since at the time of the
commission of the alleged crime, he was still married to respondent.
GADITANO V. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION 8. Guevarra explained further that the check was allegedly drawn payable to LG
Collins Electronics, and not to her, contrary to Fatima’s representation.
FACTS: AsiaTrust Bank then garnished the ₱378,000.00 from the joint savings account
of petitioners without any court order.
1. Petitioner Spouses Argovan Gaditano (Argovan) and Florida Gadiano 9. Consequently, the check issued by petitioners to SMC was dishonored
(Florida), who were engaged in the business of buying and selling beer and having been drawn against insufficient funds.
softdrinks products, purchased beer products from San Miguel Corporation 10. On 23 October 2000, petitioners filed an action for specific performance
(SMC) and damages against AsiaTrust Bank, Guevarra, SMC and Fatima,
2. Petitioners paid through a check signed by Florida and drawn against - Petitioners alleged that AsiaTrust Bank and Guevarra unlawfully
Argovan’s Asia Trust Bank Current Account. garnished and debited their bank accounts; that their obligation to SMC
3. When said check was presented for payment on 13 April 2000, the check was had been extinguished by payment; and that Fatima issued a forged check.
dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds. Despite three 11. Petitioners assert that the issues they have raised in the civil action
(3) written demands, petitioner failed to make good of the check. constitute a bar to the prosecution of the criminal case for violation of
4. This prompted SMC to file a criminal case for violation of Batas Pambansa Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and estafa.
Blg. 22 and estafa Office of the - recommended that the criminal
5. In their Counter-Affidavit, petitioners maintained that their checking account Prosecutor proceedings be suspended pending
was funded under an automatic transfer arrangement, whereby funds from their resolution
joint savings account with AsiaTrust Bank were automatically transferred to - MR denied
their checking account with said bank whenever a check they issued was DOJ - DOJ dismissed the petition.
presented for payment. - MR Denied
6. Petitioners narrated that sometime in 1999, Fatima Padua (Fatima) borrowed CA - Granted
- continuation of the preliminary
₱30,000.00 from Florida.
investigation until completed is ordered
- On 28 February 2000, Fatima delivered Allied Bank Check No. 82813 and if probable cause exists, let the
dated 18 February 2000 payable to Florida in the amount of ₱378,000.00. corresponding
- Said check was crossed and issued by AOWA Electronics. - information against the respondents be
- Florida pointed out that the amount of the check was in excess of the loan filed. drew a distinction between the civil
but she was assured by Fatima that the check was in order and the case which is an action for specific
performance and damages involving
proceeds would be used for the payroll of AOWA Electronics.
petitioners’ joint savings account, and the
- Thus, Florida deposited said check to her joint AsiaTrust Savings Account criminal case which is an action for
which she maintained with her husband, Argovan. The check was cleared estafa/violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
on 6 March 2000 and petitioners’ joint savings account was subsequently involving Argovan’s current account.
credited with the sum of ₱378,000.00. ISSUE: WON THERE EXISTSS A OREJUDICIAL QUESTION
- Florida initially paid ₱83,000.00 to Fatima.
- She then withdrew ₱295,000.00 from her joint savings account and turned We agree with the Court of Appeals that the DOJ abused its discretion when it
over the amount to Fatima. Fatima in turn paid her loan to Florida. affirmed the prosecutor’s suspension of the criminal investigation due to the
7. On 13 April 2000, (Guevarra), the Bank Manager of AsiaTrust Bank, advised existence of an alleged prejudicial question.
Florida that the Allied Bank Check No. 82813 for ₱378,000.00, the same check
handed to her by Fatima, was not cleared due to a material alteration in the Petitioner’s Contention:
name of the payee.
(1) Court of Appeals erroneously ruled against the existence of a prejudicial
question by separately treating their joint savings account and Argovan’s
current account, and concluding therefrom that the civil and criminal cases
could proceed independently of each other.
(2) CA overlooked the fact that petitioners had an automatic transfer arrangement
with AsiaTrust Bank, such that funds from the savings account were
automatically transferred to their checking account whenever a check they
issued was presented for payment.
(3) Petitioners maintain that since the checking account was funded by the monies
deposited in the savings account, what mattered was the sufficiency of the
funds in the savings account. Hence, petitioners’ separate action against
AsiaTrust Bank for unlawfully garnishing their savings account, which
eventually resulted in the dishonor of their check to SMC, poses a prejudicial
question in the instant criminal proceedings.
(4) Moreover, petitioners argue that they were not required to fully and
exhaustively present evidence to prove their claims. The presentation of their
passbook, which confirmed numerous withdrawals made on the savings
account and indicated as "FT" or "Fund Transfer," proved the existence of fund
transfer from their savings account to the checking account.
HELD:
(5) A prejudicial question generally comes into play in a situation where a civil
action and a criminal action are both pending and there exists in the
former an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the latter may
proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved
would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the
accused in the criminal case.
(6) The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid two
conflicting decisions
(7) Section 7. Elements of prejudicial question. – The elements of a prejudicial
question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar
or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and
(b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action
may proceed. (Emphasis supplied).
(8) If both civil and criminal cases have similar issues, or the issue in one is
intimately related to the issues raised in the other, then a prejudicial
question would likely exist, provided that the other element or
characteristic is satisfied.
(9) It must appear not only that the civil case involves the same facts upon which
the criminal prosecution would be based, but also that the resolution of the
issues raised in the civil action would be necessarily determinative of the guilt
or innocence of the accused.
(10) If the resolution of the issue in the civil action will not determine the criminal
responsibility of the accused in the criminal action based on the same facts, or
if there is no necessity that the civil case be determined first before taking up
the criminal case, the civil case does not involve a prejudicial question.
(11) Neither is there a prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal action can,
according to law, proceed independently of each other.12
Criminal case is whether the petitioner is guilty of estafa and violation of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22,
Civil Case whether AsiaTrust Bank had lawfully garnished the
₱378,000.00 from petitioners’ savings account.
(12) The material facts surrounding the civil case bear no relation to the criminal
investigation being conducted by the prosecutor.
(13) The prejudicial question in the civil case involves the dishonor of another
check. SMC is not privy to the nature of the alleged materially altered check
leading to its dishonor and the eventual garnishment of petitioners’ savings
account.
(14) The source of the funds of petitioners’ savings account is no longer SMC’s
concern
(15) . The matter is between petitioners and Asia Trust Bank.
(16) On the other hand, the issue in the preliminary investigation is whether
petitioners issued a bad check to SMC for the payment of beer products.
(17) The gravamen of the offense punished by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is the
act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored
upon its presentation for payment
(18) punishes the mere act of issuing a worthless check. The law did not look either
at the actual ownership of the check or of the account against which it was
made, drawn, or issued, or at the intention of the drawee, maker or issuer
(19) Even if the trial court in the civil case declares Asia Trust Bank liable for the
unlawful garnishment of petitioners’ savings account, petitioners cannot
be automatically adjudged free from criminal liability for violation of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, because the mere issuance of worthless checks
with knowledge of the insufficiency of funds to support the checks is in
itself the offense.
Teodoro A. Reyes v. Ettore Rossi
G.R. No. 159823. February 18, 2013
Facts:
1. Teodoro Reyes contracted a deed of conditional sale with Advanced Foundation
Construction System Corporation represented by Ettore Rossi for the purchase
of a certain dredging pump.
2. The pump was sold at P10,000,000 with the scheme of 30% down payment and
70% to be paid with postdated checks.
3. Following the restructuring of the agreement, Rossi agreed to accept nine (9)
postdated checks from Reyes in compliance with the remaining balance.
4. However, when Rossi deposited 3 of the 9 checks, the checks were denied
ostensibly upon Reyes’ instruction to stop payment and by lack of sufficient
funds.
5. This prompted Rossi to charge Reyes with several counts of estafa and
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
6. Reyes, on the other hand, filed a petition in court for the rescission of his
contract with Rossi and claim for damages.
7. Reyes alleged that Advanced Foundation misrepresented the quality of the pump
that he bought.
8. Reyes claims that the checks had not been issued for any valuable consideration;
that he discovered from the start of using dredging pump; 560 hp and not the
agreed upon 1200 hp
9. Upon ignoring his complaints, Reyes caused the order to stop payment of the
three checks.
Assistant City Prosecutor Recommended dismissal of charge of estafa
and the suspension of the proceedings relating
to BP 22 based on prejudicial question
CA No prejudicial question
Issue: WON THERE IS A PREJUDICAL QUESTION
Held
(1) A prejudicial question generally comes into play in a situation where a civil
action and a criminal action are both pending, and there exists in the former an
issue that must first be determined before the latter may proceed, because
howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative
juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case.16
The rationale for the suspension on the ground of a prejudicial question is to
avoid conflicting decisions.17
(2) Two elements that must concur in order for a civil case to be considered a
prejudicial question are expressly stated in Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules
of Criminal Procedure, to wit:
Section 7. Elements of prejudicial question. – The elements of a prejudicial
question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or
intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b)
the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may
proceed.
(Sabandal v. Tongco,)
For a civil action to be considered prejudicial to a criminal case as to cause the
suspension of the criminal proceedings until the final resolution of the civil, the
following requisites must be present: (1) the civil case involves facts intimately related
to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based;
(2) in the resolution of the issue or issues 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.
(3) If both civil and criminal cases have similar issues or the issue in one is
intimately related to the issues raised in the other, then a prejudicial
question would likely exist, provided the other element or characteristic is
satisfied.
(4) If the resolution of the issue in the civil action will not determine the criminal
responsibility of the accused in the criminal action based on the same facts, or
there is no necessity "that the civil case be determined first before taking up the
criminal case," therefore, the civil case does not involve a prejudicial question.
(5) Neither is there a prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal action can,
according to law, proceed independently of each other.
(6) ‘To properly appreciate if there is a prejudicial question to warrant the
suspension of the criminal actions, reference is made to the elements of the
crimes charged.
(7) The violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 requires the concurrence of the
following elements, namely: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check
to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or
issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with
the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and
(3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of
funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any
valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.
BP 22 whether or not Reyes issued the dishonoured checks knowing
them to be without funds upon presentment.
Civil whether or not the breach in the fulfilment of Advanced
Action Foundation’s obligation warranted the rescission of the
conditional sale.
(8) If, after trial on the merits in the civil action, Advanced Foundation would be
found to have committed material breach as to warrant the rescission of the
 contract, such result would not necessarily mean that Reyes would be absolved
of the criminal responsibility for issuing the dishonored checks because, as the
aforementioned elements show, he already committed the violations upon the
dishonor of the checks that he had issued at a time when the conditional sale was
still fully binding upon the parties.
(9) His obligation to fund the checks or to make arrangements for them with
the drawee bank should not be tied up to the future event of extinguishment
of the obligation under the contract of sale through rescission.
(10) Indeed, under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the mere issuance of a worthless check
was already the offense in itself.
(11) Under such circumstances, the criminal proceedings for the violation of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 could proceed despite the pendency of the civil
action for rescission of the conditional sale.

Accordingly, we agree with the holding of the CA that the civil action for the
rescission of contract was not determinative of the guilt or innocence of Reyes.
(12) In this light, it is clear that the pendency of the civil case does not bar the
continuation of the proceedings in the preliminary investigation on the ground
that it poses a prejudicial question.
(13) Considering that the contracts are deemed to be valid until rescinded, the
consideration and obligatory effect thereof are also deemed to have been
validly made, thus demandable.
(14) Consequently, there was no failure of consideration at the time when the subject
checks were dishonored. (Emphasis supplied)