(mjvillanueva)

G.R NO. 176795 JUNE 30, 2008

SPS. CAROLINA AND REYNALDO JOSE (PETITIONER)

-versus-
SPS. LAUREANO AND PURITA SUAREZ

FACTS:

Respondents had availed of petitioner Carolina Jose’s offer to lend money at daily
interest of 1% to 2% which the latter increased to 5% and respondents were forced
to accept due to their financial distress. They sought to nullify the 5% interest per
day fixing claiming that the same were contrary to morals and done under vitiated
consent.

Thereafter, the petitioners herein filed cases of violation of BP22 against

respondents where the latter filed motions to suspend hearings based on the
existence of a prejudicial question. Herein respondents claimed that if the 5%
interest rates are nullified and loans are computed at 1% per month, it would mean
that the checks which are objects of BP22 cases are not only fully paid but in fact
over paid.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a prejudicial questions exists such that the outcome of the validity
of the interest is determinative of the guilt or innocence of the respondents in the
criminal case

HELD:

NO PREJUDICIAL QUESTION EXISTS. Prejudicial questions have two

elements:
a) The civil actions 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.

The validity or invalidity of the interest rate is not determinative of the guilt of
the respondents in the criminal case. The cause or reason for issuance of a
check is immaterial in determining criminal culpability under BP22. The law
punishes the issuance of the bouncing check and not the purpose it was
issued for.
(mjvillanueva)

G.R. NO. 151970 MAY 7, 2008

WINSTON MENDOZA AND FE MICLAT (PETITIONERS)

--versus—
FERNANDO ALARMA and FAUSTA ALARMA

FACTS:

SPS. Alarma are owners of an 11.7 ha. parcel of land in Iba, Zambales which they
posted as property bond for a criminal case. Due to the failure of the accused to
appear, the trial court ordered his arrest and confiscation of his bond. The
bondsmen were given 30 days to produce the accused and to show cause why a
judgment should not be rendered against them.

After 2 years, without a judgment but only a writ of execution was issued, the land
was sold at a public auction and petitioner spouses bought the same. They took
possession of the land and sought registration of the same which was opposed by
the respondents but was granted and the petitioners were given an Original
Certificate of Title (OCT). The respondents sought appeal with Court of Appeals
which reversed the finding of the trial court, annulled the OCT and ordered a new
title in favor of the petitioners.

The motion for reconsideration was denied hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA erred in finding defect in the proceeding in the trial court
and in ordering annulment of OCT.

HELD:

NO. Two years had passed from the time the trial court ordered forfeiture and
issued an execution which is not a judgment. An order of forfeiture is conditional
since something more needs to be done because such order is different from
judgment on the bond which is issued if the accused is not produced within 30
days. Such judgment is the one that ultimately determines liability of surety and
when it become final, execution may issue at once.

No such judgment was ever issued and the law was not strictly observed. The
appellate court was correct in ordering the annulment of the OCT because the
petitioners had no valid title thereto and reconveyance of the property is only
proper under the circumstances.