Yap v. Cabales
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Jesse Y. Yap and his spouse engaged in real estate. In 1996, petitioner purchased properties from Evelyn Te, issuing postdated checks. These checks were subsequently rediscounted by Spouses Orlando and Mergyl Mirabueno, and Spouses Charlie and Jovita Dimalanta. In early 1997, the checks were dishonored by the drawee bank due to the account being closed. Despite demands, petitioner failed to make good the checks. 2. Procedural History: Civil actions for collection of sums of money and damages were filed by Spouses Mirabueno and Spouses Dimalanta against petitioner in December 1997. Concurrently, several informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22) were filed against petitioner before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC). Petitioner sought to suspend the criminal proceedings, arguing the existence of a prejudicial question due to the pending civil cases. The MTCC denied these motions. Petitioner's subsequent petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) was also denied. He then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed his petition, ruling that the civil cases did not pose a prejudicial question to the BP 22 cases. The CA denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. 3. The Petition: This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeks to annul the CA's resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. Petitioner argues that the CA erred in ruling that no prejudicial question exists, contending that the civil cases for collection of sums of money are determinative of his guilt or innocence in the BP 22 cases. He asserts that if the civil court finds no valid consideration for the checks, he cannot be held liable under BP 22. Petitioner also assigns error to the CA's denial of his prayer for a preliminary injunction and/or status quo order.
Issue(s)
Whether the civil cases for collection of sum of money filed by private respondents constitute a prejudicial question that would warrant the suspension of the criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not granting the prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or status quo order.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. 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.
Ratio Decidendi
On the existence of a prejudicial question: The Court held that there is no prejudicial question that would warrant the suspension of the criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. A prejudicial question generally exists when a civil action and a criminal action are pending, and an issue in the civil action must be resolved before the criminal action can proceed, as its resolution would be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The two essential elements are: (i) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue in the criminal action; and (ii) the resolution of the issue in the civil action determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. In this case, the issue in the civil actions is whether the private respondents are entitled to collect from the petitioner the sum or value of the checks they rediscounted, while the issue in the criminal cases is whether the petitioner violated B.P. Blg. 22. The Court found that the resolution of the civil case is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the petitioner in the criminal cases. Even if the petitioner were declared not liable for the payment of the checks and damages in the civil actions, he could still be held liable for the violation of B.P. Blg. 22, as the mere issuance of worthless checks with knowledge of insufficiency of funds is an offense. The Court reiterated that B.P. Blg. 22 punishes the act of making and issuing a worthless check, which is an offense against public order, and not merely the non-payment of an obligation. The purpose for which the check was issued, or the terms and conditions relating to its issuance, are irrelevant to the determination of guilt under B.P. Blg. 22. Therefore, the civil cases do not pose a prejudicial question that would necessitate the suspension of the criminal proceedings. On the prayer for preliminary injunction and/or status quo order: Since the Court found no prejudicial question that would warrant the suspension of the criminal cases, the prayer for a preliminary injunction and/or status quo order, which was predicated on the existence of such a prejudicial question, was consequently denied. The Court emphasized that the validity of defenses, such as lack of consideration, should be ventilated during the trial of the criminal cases, and the Supreme Court is not the proper forum to ascertain facts and decide the case for violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
Main Doctrine
The existence of civil cases for collection of sum of money based on dishonored checks does not constitute a prejudicial question that would warrant the suspension of criminal cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, as the gravamen of the offense under BP 22 is the issuance of a worthless check, irrespective of the purpose or condition of its issuance.