FIRST DIVISION
[G. R. No. 124498. October 5, 2001]
EDDIE B. SABANDAL, petitioner, vs. HON. FELIPE S. TONGCO, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 42, and PHILIPPINES TODAY, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PARDO,
J.:
The Case
The case is a petition to
suspend the criminal proceedings in the Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch
42,[1] where petitioner Eddie B. Sabandal is
charged with eleven counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.[2]
The Facts
On February 18, 1989,
Eddie B. Sabandal entered into a memorandum of agreement on dealership with
respondent Philippines Today, Inc. for the distribution of the newspaper
Philippines Today, (now Philippine Star) in Bacolod City and in designated
towns in Negros Occidental.[3]
Under the agreement,
petitioner shall pay for an equivalent amount of one month of deliveries in
advance within the first seven days of the succeeding month. Petitioner’s
allowable percentage of return shall be 10% and be entitled to a rebate of
P0.15 per copy sold.
After execution of the
agreement, respondent Philippines Today, Inc. made regular deliveries of the
agreed copies of the newspaper to petitioner.
In order to make partial
payments for the deliveries, on December 18, 1990 to April 15, 1991, petitioner
issued to respondent several checks amounting to ninety thousand (P90,000.00)
pesos.
When respondent presented
petitioner’s checks to the drawee banks for payment, the bank dishonored the
checks for insufficiency of funds and/or account closed. Consequently, respondent made oral and
written demands for petitioner to make good the checks. However, petitioner failed to pay despite
demands.
In December 1992, on the
basis of a complaint-affidavit filed by respondent Philippines Today, Inc.,
assistant city prosecutor of Manila Jacinto A. de los Reyes, Jr. filed with the
Regional Trial Court, Manila eleven informations for violation of Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22 against petitioner.[4]
Three years later, or on
October 11, 1995, petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court, Negros Occidental
at Himamaylan, a complaint against Philippines Today, Inc. for specific
performance, recovery of overpayment and damages.[5]
On October 11, 1995,
petitioner also filed with the Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 42, a
motion to suspend trial in the criminal cases against him based on a
prejudicial question.[6]
On November 27, 1995, the
trial court denied petitioner’s motion to suspend trial based on a prejudicial
question.[7]
On December 20, 1995,
petitioner filed with the trial court a motion for reconsideration of the
denial.[8]
On January 9, 1996, the
trial court denied the motion for reconsideration.[9]
Hence, this petition.[10]
The Issue
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.[11]
“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.”[12]
“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.”[13]
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.[14] 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.[15] 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.[16] Neither is there a prejudicial question if
the civil and the criminal action can, according to law, proceed independently
of each other.[17]
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.[18]
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.[19] Hence, petitioner may invoke all defenses
pertaining to his civil liability in the criminal action.[20]
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.[21]
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman), Puno,
and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
Kapunan, J., (on official leave).
[1] In Criminal Cases
Nos. 92-113446-56, Judge Felipe S. Tongco, presiding.
[2] Otherwise known as
the Bouncing Checks Law.
[3] Petition, Annex “A”,
Rollo, p. 34.
[4] Petition, Annexes
“B”, “C”, “D”, “E”, “F”, “G”, “H”, “I”, “J”, “K”, “L”, Rollo, pp. 35-45.
[5] Peittion, Annex “M”,
Rollo, pp. 46-52.
[6] Petition, Annex “N”,
Rollo, pp. 54-56.
[7] Petition, Annex “P”,
Rollo, pp. 61-62.
[8] Petition, Annex “Q”,
Rollo, pp. 63-73.
[9] Petition, Annex “R”,
Rollo, p. 74.
[10] Filed on April 24,
1996, Rollo, pp. 17-32. On June 23,
1999, the Court gave due course to the petition (Rollo, pp. 176-177). The case
was considered submitted for decision upon the filing of petitioner’s
memorandum on October 12, 1999 (Rollo, pp. 271-280).
[11] 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].
[12] Donato v.
Luna, 160 SCRA 441 [1988]; Quiambao v. Osorio, 158 SCRA 674 [1988]; Ras v.
Rasul, 100 SCRA 125, 127 [1980].
[13] Prado v.
People, 218 Phil. 573, 577 [1984].
[14] Alano v.
Court of Appeals, 347 Phil. 549, 553 [1997], citing Benitez v.
Concepcion, Jr., 112 Phil. 105 [1961].
[15] Te v. Court
of Appeals, G. R. No. 126746, November 29, 2000; Beltran v. People, 334
SCRA 106, 111 [2000].
[16] Isip v.
Gonzales, 148-A Phil. 212 [1971].
[17] Rojas v.
People, 156 Phil. 224, 229 [1974].
[18] Lozano v.
Martinez, 146 SCRA 323 [1986].
[19] 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].
[20] First Producers
Holdings Corporation v. Co, 336 SCRA 551, 559 [2000]; Javier v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, 171 SCRA 605 [1989].
[21] R. A. No. 8493.