PREJUDICIAL QUESTION |
The issue raised is whether 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
Court’s Ruling The petition has no merit. 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; and (b) the
resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may
proceed.[i]
Rule 111, Section 5,
1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure; Dichaves v. Apalit, 333 SCRA 54, 57
[2000]; Ching v. Court of Appeals, 331 SCRA 16, 27 [2000]. “A prejudicial question is
defined as that which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical
antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains
to another tribunal. The prejudicial question must be determinative of the
case before the court but the jurisdiction to try and resolve the question
must be lodged in another court or tribunal.
It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime
but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence
of the accused.”[ii]
Donato v.
Luna, 160 SCRA 441 [1988]; Quiambao v. Osorio, 158 SCRA 674 [1988]; Ras
v. Rasul, 100 SCRA 125, 127 [1980] “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.”[iii]
Prado v. People, 218 Phil. 573, 577
[1984]. 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.[iv]
Alano v. Court of Appeals, 347 Phil. 549, 553 [1997], citing Benitez v.
Concepcion, Jr., 112 Phil. 105 [1961]. 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.[v]
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.[vi]
Te v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 126746,
November 29, 2000; Beltran v. People, 334 SCRA 106, 111 [2000]. Neither
is there a prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal action can,
according to law, proceed independently of each other.[vii]
Te v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 126746,
November 29, 2000; Beltran v. People, 334 SCRA 106, 111 [2000]. 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.[viii]
Lozano v.
Martinez, 146 SCRA 323 [1986]. The lower court, therefore, did
not err in ruling that the pendency of a civil action for specific
performance, overpayment, and damages did not pose a prejudicial question in
the criminal cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. 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. Petitioner’s 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.[ix]
Rule 111, Section 1, 1985
Rules of Criminal Procedure; Garcia v. Court of Appeals, 334 Phil. 621,
632 [1997]; Manuel v. Alfeche, Jr., 328 Phil. 832, 840-841 [1996].Hence,
petitioner may invoke all defenses pertaining to his civil liability in the
criminal action.[x]
First Producers
Holdings Corporation v. Co, 336 SCRA 551, 559 [2000]; Javier v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, 171 SCRA 605 [1989]. The
Fallo WHEREFORE, the Court hereby DISMISSES the petition for lack of merit. The Court directs the Regional Trial Court, Manila to proceed with the trial of the criminal cases against petitioner with all judicious dispatch in accordance with the Speedy Trial Act of 1998.[xi] R. A. No. 8493. Justice Pardo, First Division, EDDIE B. SABANDAL, petitioner, vs. HON. FELIPE S. TONGCO, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 42, and PHILIPPINES TODAY, respondents, [G. R. No. 124498. October 5, 2001]
|
home top |
For inquiries or comments,
you may contact the webmaster |