THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 159186. June 5, 2009.]
JESSE Y. YAP , petitioner, vs . HON. MONICO G. CABALES, Presiding
Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, General Santos City;
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, Branch 1, General Santos City; COURT OF
APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, JOVITA DIMALANTA and
MERGYL MIRABUENO , respondents.
DECISION
PERALTA , J : p
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court with
prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or issuance of status quo
order seeking to annul and set aside the Resolution 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA)
dated July 17, 2003 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the Decision 2
dated April 30, 2003 in CA-G.R. SP No. 68250.
The facts of the case are as follows:
Petitioner Jesse Y. Yap and his spouse Bessie Yap are engaged in the real estate
business through their company Primetown Property Group.
Sometime in 1996, petitioner purchased several real properties from a certain
Evelyn Te (Evelyn). In consideration of said purchases, petitioner issued several Bank of
the Philippine Islands (BPI) postdated checks to Evelyn. Thereafter, spouses Orlando
and Mergyl Mirabueno and spouses Charlie and Jovita Dimalanta, rediscounted the
checks from Evelyn.
In the beginning, the rst few checks were honored by the bank, but in the early
part of 1997, when the remaining checks were deposited with the drawee bank, they
were dishonored for the reason that the "Account is Closed". Demands were made by
Spouses Mirabueno and Spouses Dimalanta to the petitioner to make good the checks.
Despite this, however, the latter failed to pay the amounts represented by the said
checks. cDHAES
On December 8, 1997, Spouses Mirabueno led a civil action for collection of
sum of money, damages and attorney's fee with prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
General Santos City, docketed as Civil Case No. 6231. 3 On December 15, 1997,
Spouses Dimalanta followed suit and instituted a similar action, which was docketed as
Civil Case No. 6238. 4
Subsequently, on various dates, the O ce of the City Prosecutor of General
Santos City filed several informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (B.P. Blg.)
22 against the petitioner with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), General Santos
City. The criminal complaints were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 34873, 34874,
34862 to 34869, and Criminal Case No. 35522-I. 5
In the criminal cases, petitioner led separate motions to suspend proceedings
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
on account of the existence of a prejudicial question and motion to exclude the private
prosecutor from participating in the proceedings. 6 Petitioner prayed that the
proceedings in the criminal cases be suspended until the civil cases pending before the
RTC were finally resolved.
The MTCC, in its Orders 7 dated June 21, 2000 and July 4, 2000, denied the
motions for lack of merit. Petitioner led a Partial Motion for Reconsideration 8 relative
to Criminal Case Nos. 34873, 34874, 34862 to 34869 and a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Part of the Order Denying the Motion to Suspend Proceedings
on Account of the Existence of a Prejudicial Question relative to Criminal Case No.
35522-I. 9 The subsequent motions were denied in the Order 1 0 dated October 18,
2000.
Aggrieved, petitioner led a Petition for Certiorari with a Prayer for the Issuance
of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction 1 1 before the RTC, docketed as SPL. Civil Case No.
539, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the MTCC Judge. On July 2,
2001, the RTC issued an Order 1 2 denying the petition.
Petitioner then led a Motion for Reconsideration, 1 3 which was denied in an
Order dated October 18, 2001. 1 4
Thereafter, petitioner led with the CA a Petition for Certiorari Prohibition and
Mandamus with Urgent Prayer for the Issuance of Status Quo Order and Writ of
Preliminary Injunction, 1 5 docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 68250.
On April 30, 2003, the CA rendered a Decision 1 6 dismissing the petition for lack
of merit. The CA opined that Civil Case Nos. 6231 and 6238 did not pose a prejudicial
question to the prosecution of the petitioner for violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
The CA ruled: aAHISE
In the instant case, a careful perusal of Civil Cases Nos. 6231 and 6238
reveals that the issue involved therein is not the validity of the sale as incorrectly
pointed out by the petitioner, but it is, whether or not the complainants therein are
entitled to collect from the petitioner the sum or the value of the checks which
they have rediscounted from Evelyn Te. It behooves this Court to state that the
sale and the rediscounting of the checks are two transactions, separate and
distinct from each other. It so happened that in the subject civil cases it is not the
sale that is in question, but rather the rediscounting of the checks. Therefore,
petitioner's contention that the main issue involved in said civil cases is the
validity of the sale stands on hollow ground. Furthermore, if it is indeed the
validity of the sale that is contested in the subject civil cases, then, We cannot
fathom why the petitioner never contested such sale by ling an action for the
annulment thereof or at least invoked or prayed in his answer that the sale be
declared null and void. Accordingly, even if Civil Cases Nos. 6231 and 6238 are
tried and the resolution of the issues therein is had, it cannot be deduced
therefrom that the petitioner cannot be held liable anymore for violation of B.P.
Blg. 22. 1 7
Petitioner led a Motion for Reconsideration, 1 8 which was denied in the Order 1 9
dated July 17, 2003.
Hence, the petition assigning the following errors:
1. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT
THERE IS NO PREJUDICIAL QUESTION IN THE CIVIL CASES (FOR COLLECTION
OF SUMS OF MONEY INSTITUTED BY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS OVER CHECKS
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER, CIVIL CASE NOS. 6238 AND 6231) THAT WOULD
WARRANT SUSPENSION OF THE CRIMINAL CASES (CASE NO. 35522-1, FOR
VIOLATION OF B.P. 22, SUBJECT OF WHICH ARE THE VERY SAME CHECKS).
2. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT GRANTING
THE PRAYER FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
AND/OR STATUS QUO ORDER. 2 0
The main contention of the petitioner is that a prejudicial question, as de ned by
law and jurisprudence, exists in the present case. It is the petitioner's assertion that
Civil Case Nos. 6231 and 6238 for collection of sum of money and damages were led
ahead of the criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. He further alleged that, in the
pending civil cases, the issue as to whether private respondents are entitled to collect
from the petitioner despite the lack of consideration, is an issue that is a logical
antecedent to the criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. For if the court rules that
there is no valid consideration for the check's issuance, as petitioner contends, then it
necessarily follows that he could not also be held liable for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. cASTED
Petitioner further avers that B.P. Blg. 22 speci cally requires, among other
elements, that the check should have been issued for account or for value. There must
be a valid consideration; otherwise, no violation of the said law could be rightfully
pursued. Petitioner said that the reason for the dishonor of the checks was his order to
the drawee bank to stop payment and to close his account in order to avoid necessary
penalty from the bank. He made this order due to the failure of Evelyn to deliver to him
the titles to the purchased properties to him.
On the other hand, the O ce of the Solicitor General (OSG) contends that there is
no prejudicial question in Civil Case Nos. 6231 and 6238 which would warrant the
suspension of the proceedings in the criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against
the petitioner. The issue in the civil cases is not the validity of the sale between the
petitioner and Evelyn, but whether the complainants therein are entitled to damages
arising from the checks. These checks were issued by the petitioner in favor of Evelyn,
who, thereafter, negotiated the same checks to private complainants. The checks were
subsequently dishonored due to insu ciency of funds. The OSG maintains that the
resolution of such issue has absolutely no bearing on the issue of whether petitioner
may be held liable for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. 2 1
The present case hinges on the determination of whether there exists a
prejudicial question that necessitates the suspension of the proceedings in the MTCC.
We find that there is none and, thus, we resolve to deny the petition.
A prejudicial question generally exists in a situation where a civil action and a
criminal action are both pending, and there exists in the former an issue that 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. The rationale behind the principle of
prejudicial question is to avoid two con icting decisions. It has two essential elements:
(i) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
criminal action; and (ii) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the
criminal action may proceed. 2 2
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 satis ed. It must appear not
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
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. 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 rst before taking up the criminal case, the civil case
does not involve a prejudicial question. 2 3 Neither is there a prejudicial question if the
civil and the criminal action can, according to law, proceed independently of each other.
24
The issue in the criminal cases is whether the petitioner is guilty of violating B.P.
Blg. 22, while in the civil case, it is whether the private respondents are entitled to
collect from the petitioner the sum or the value of the checks that they have
rediscounted from Evelyn.
The resolution of the issue raised in the civil action is not determinative of the
guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal cases against him, and there is no
necessity that the civil case be determined first before taking up the criminal cases.
In the aforementioned civil actions, even if petitioner is declared not liable for the
payment of the value of the checks and damages, he cannot be adjudged free from
criminal liability for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. The mere issuance of worthless checks
with knowledge of the insu ciency of funds to support the checks is in itself an
offense. 2 5
In Jose v. Suarez, 2 6 the prejudicial question under determination was whether
the daily interest rate of 5% was void, such that the checks issued by respondents to
cover said interest were likewise void for being contra bonos mores, and thus the
cases for B.P. Blg. 22 will no longer prosper. In resolving the issue, We ruled that
"whether or not the interest rate imposed by petitioners is eventually declared void for
being contra bonos mores will not affect the outcome of the BP Blg. 22 cases because
what will ultimately be penalized is the mere issuance of bouncing checks. In fact, the
primordial question posed before the court hearing the B.P. Blg. 22 cases is whether
the law has been breached; that is, if a bouncing check has been issued".
Further, We held in Ricaforte v. Jurado, 2 7 that:
The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making
and issuing a worthless check; that is, a check that is dishonored upon its
presentation for payment. In Lozano v. Martinez, we have declared that it is not
the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. The law is not intended
or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit,
under pain of penal sanctions, the making and circulation of worthless checks.
Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed
by the law. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an
offense against public order. In People v. Nitafan, we said that a check issued as
an evidence of debt — though not intended to be presented for payment — has the
same effect as an ordinary check and would fall within the ambit of B.P. Blg. 22.
xxx xxx xxx
. . . The mere act of issuing a worthless check — whether as a deposit, as a
guarantee or even as evidence of pre-existing debt — is malum prohibitum.
To determine the reason for which checks are issued, or the terms and
conditions for their issuance, will greatly erode the faith the public reposes in the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
stability and commercial value of checks as currency substitutes, and bring about
havoc in trade and in banking communities. So what the law punishes is the issuance of
a bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was issued or the terms and
conditions relating to its issuance. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum
prohibitum. 2 8 ASEIDH
Moreover, petitioner's reliance on Ras v. Rasul 2 9 is misplaced. The case of Ras
involves a complaint for nulli cation of a deed of sale on the ground of an alleged
double sale. While the civil case was pending, an information for estafa was led
against Ras (the defendant in the civil case) arising from the same alleged double sale,
subject matter of the civil complaint. The Court ruled that there was a prejudicial
question considering that the defense in the civil case was based on the very same
facts that would be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the estafa
case.
The instant case is different from Ras, inasmuch as the determination of whether
the petitioner is liable to pay the private respondents the value of the checks and
damages, will not affect the guilt or innocence of the petitioner because the material
question in the criminal cases is whether petitioner had issued bad checks, regardless
of the purpose or condition of its issuance.
Guided by the following legal precepts, it is clear that the determination of the
issues involved in Civil Case Nos. 6231 and 6238 for collection of sum of money and
damages is irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of the petitioner in the criminal cases for
violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
In addition, petitioner's claim of lack of consideration may be raised as a defense
during the trial of the criminal cases against him. The validity and merits of a party's
defense and accusation, as well as the admissibility and weight of testimonies and
evidence brought before the court, are better ventilated during trial proper.
Precisely, the reason why a state has courts of law is to ascertain the respective
rights of the parties, to examine and to put to test all their respective allegations and
evidence through a well designed machinery termed "trial". Thus, all the defenses
available to the accused should be invoked in the trial of the criminal cases. This court
is not the proper forum that should ascertain the facts and decide the case for violation
of B.P. Blg. 22 filed against the petitioner.
In fine, the CA committed no reversible error in affirming the decision of the RTC.
WHEREFORE , the petition is DENIED and the Decision dated April 30, 2003 and
the Resolution dated July 17, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 68250 are
AFFIRMED .
SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, * Corona ** and Nachura, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
* Designated to sit as an additional member, per Special Order No. 646 dated May 158, *
2009.
** Designated to sit as an additional member, per Special Order No. 631 dated April 29,
2009.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
1. Penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, with Associate Justices Salvador J.
Valdez, Jr. and Danilo B. Pine, concurring, rollo, pp. 30-32.
2. Id. at 33-41.
3. Id. at 97-103.
4. Id. at 90-96.
5. Id. at 68-89.
6. Id. at 219-223; 224-228.
7. Id. at 165; 166.
8. Id. at 229-235.
9. Id. at 236-238.
10. Id. at 167-168.
11. Id. at 152-164.
12. Id. at 66-67.
13. Id. at 45.
14. Id.
15. Id. at 44-65.
16. Id. at 33-41.
17. Id. at 37-38.
18. Id. at 105-107.
19. Id. at 30-32.
20. Id. at 22. cHAaEC
21. Id. at 298-311.
22. Jose v. Suarez, G.R. No. 176795, June 30, 2008, 556 SCRA 773, 781-782, citing Carlos
v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 490, 499 (1997) and Tuanda v. Sandiganbayan, 249 SCRA
342 (1995).
23. People v. Consing, Jr., G.R. No. 148193, January 16, 2003, 395 SCRA 366, 370, citing
Sabandal v. Tongco, 366 SCRA 567 (2001), Alano v. Court of Appeals, 347 Phil. 549
(1997), Benitez v. Concepcion, Jr., 112 Phil. 105 (1961), Te v. Court of Appeals, 346
SCRA 327 (2000), Beltran v. People, 334 SCRA 106 (2000), and Isip v. Gonzales, 148-A
Phil. 212 (1971).
24. Sabandal v. Tongco, supra note 23, citing Rojas v. People, 156 Phil. 224, 229 (1974).
25. Lozano v. Martinez, G.R. No. L-63419, December 18, 1986, 146 SCRA 323.
26. Supra note 22.
27. G.R. No. 154438, September 5, 2007, 532 SCRA 317, 330. (Emphasis supplied).
28. Wong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117857, February 2, 2001, 351 SCRA 100, citing
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
Llamado v. Court of Appeals, 270 SCRA 423, 431 (1997).
29. G.R. Nos. L-50441-42, September 18, 1980, 100 SCRA 125.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
