19. DREAMWORK CONSTRUCTION, INC. V. JANIOLA AND HON. FAMINI G.R. NO. 186861 (2009) Rule 111, Sec.

5
Prejudicial Question An information for violating B.P. 22 was filed against Janiola, as instituted by the complaint-
affidavit filed by Dreamwork against Janiola. After 2 years, Janiola and her husband filed a civil case against
Dreamwork for the rescission of an alleged construction agreement between the parties, as well as for damages.
The checks, subject of the criminal cases before the MTC, were issued in consideration of the construction
agreement. Janiola file for Motion to Suspend Proceedings based on Prejudicial Question. According to Janiola
the civil case on rescission of the construction agreement must be first decided prior to the BP 22 criminal case.
Sec. 7 of Rule 111 provides: SEC. 7. Elements of prejudicial question.—The elements of a prejudicial question
are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in
the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal
action may proceed. A prejudicial question is understood in law as that which must precede the criminal action
and which requires a decision before a final judgment can be rendered in the criminal action with which said
question is closely connected.

The civil action must be instituted prior to the institution of the criminal action. In any event, even if the civil
case here was instituted prior to the criminal action, there is, still, no prejudicial question to speak of that would
justify the suspension of the proceedings in the criminal case. It must be remembered that the elements of the
crime punishable under BP 22 are as follows: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for
account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue there are no
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment;
and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or dishonor
for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.

The fact that there exists a valid contract or agreement to support the issuance of the check/s or that the checks
were issued for valuable consideration does not make up the elements of the crime. The agreement surrounding
the issuance of dishonored checks is irrelevant to the prosecution for violation of BP 22.

Dreamwork v Janiola (DIGEST) G.R. No. 184861; 30 June 2009

FACTS:

This case is a petition for the reversal of the decision on the suspension of the criminal proceeding filed by the
petitioner in the MTC for the ground that there is a presence of prejudicial question with respect to the civil case
belatedly filed by the respondent.

The petitioner appealed to RTC but denied Dreamwork, through its President, and Vice-President, filed a
Complaint Affidavit against Janiola for violation of BP 22 at the Office of the City Prosecutor of Las Piñas City.

Correspondingly, the former also filed a criminal information for violation of BP 22 against private respondent with
the MTC, entitled People of the Philippines v. Cleofe S. Janiola. On September 20, 2006, Janiola instituted a civil
complaint against petitioner for the rescission of an alleged construction agreement between the parties, as well
as for damages.
Thereafter, respondent filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings in the Criminal Case for the ground that private
respondent claim that the civil case posed a prejudicial question against the criminal case. Petitioner opposed the
Respondent’s Motion to Suspend criminal proceeding based on juridical question for the following grounds:

(1) there is no prejudicial question in this case as the rescission of the contract upon which the bouncing checks
were issued is a separate and distinct issue from the issue of whether private respondent violated BP 22; and

(2) Section 7, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court states that one of the elements of a prejudicial question is that “the
previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent
criminal action”; thus, this element is missing in this case, the criminal case having preceded the civil case.

The MTC granted the Respondents Motion to Suspend Proceedings. Petitioner appealed the Orders to the RTC but
denied the petition. Hence, this petition raised.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the MTC or RTC Court erred in its discretion to suspend proceedings in Criminal Case on the basis
of “Prejudicial Question “, with respect to the Civil Case belatedly filed.

HELD:

This petition must be granted, pursuant to SEC. 7.Elements of prejudicial question.

The elements of a prejudicial question are:

(a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
subsequent criminal action; and

(b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.

Under the amendment, a prejudicial question is understood in law as that which must precede the criminal action
and which requires a decision before a final judgment can be rendered in the criminal action. The civil action must
be instituted prior to the institution of the criminal action.

In this case, the Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan ahead of the complaint in Civil Case filed by the
State with the RTC. Thus, no prejudicial question exists. The Resolution of the Civil Case Is Not Determinative of
the Prosecution of the Criminal Action. Even if the trial court in the civil case declares that the construction
agreement between the parties is void for lack of consideration, this would not affect the prosecution of private
respondent in the criminal case. The fact of the matter is that private respondent issued checks that were
subsequently dishonored for insufficient funds. It is this fact that is subject of prosecution under BP 22.Therefore,
it is clear that the second element required for the existence of a prejudicial question, is absent. Thus, no
prejudicial question exists.

QUIAMBAO v. OSORIO
GR No. L-48157 March 16, 1988
FACTS:
Ejectment Case. Private Respondent claims to own the land and Petitioner through force, intimidation, strategy
and stealth entered their property. Petitioner raised in his affirmative defense and as a ground for dismissing the
case that an administrative case is pending before the Office of Land Authority between the same parties and
involving the same piece of land.

In the administrative case Quiambao disputes the right of the Private Respondent over the property for default in
payments for the purchase of the lot. Petitioner argue that the administrative case was determinative of private
respondents right toe eject petitioner from the from the lot in question; hence a prejudicial question which bars a
judicial action until after its termination.

The Municipal Court denied the Motion to Dismiss contained in the Petitioner’s affirmative defenses. Petitioner
appealed to the Court of First Instance. Private Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing there is no Prejudicial
Question.

The Land Authority filed and Urgent Motion for Leave to Intervene in the CFI praying that the Petition for Certiorari
be granted and the ejectment case be dismissed and the Office of the Land Authority be allowed to decide the
matter exclusively.

The Petition was denied by the CFI finding the issue involved in the ejectment case to be one of prior possession
and Motion to Intervene was denied for lack of merit.

Petitioner and Intervenor raised the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATIVE CASE BETWEEN THE PRIVATE PARTIES INVOLVING THE LOT SUBJECT
MATTER OF THE EJECTMENT CASE CONSTITUTES A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION WHICH WOULD OPERATE AS A BAR TO
SAID EJECTMENT CASE.

DECISION: PETITION IS GRANTED. CIVIL CASE No. 2526 of the then MUNICIPAL COURT OF MALABON RIZAL IS
HEREBY ORDERED DISMISSED. No Costs.
Technically, No prejudicial question.

A prejudicial question is understood in law to be that which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical
antecedent of the issue involved in said case and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. (Zapata v.
Montessa 4 SCRA 510 (1962); Pp v. Aragon, 500 G. No. 10, 4863) The Doctrine of Prejudicial Question comes into
play generally in a situation where civil and criminal actions are pending and the issues involved in both cases are
similar or so closely related that an issue must be pre-emptively resolved in the civil case before the criminal action
can proceed. Thus, the existence of a prejudicial question in a civil case is alleged in the criminal case to cause the
suspension of the latter pending final determination of the former.

The essential elements of a prejudicial question as provided under Section 5, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of
Court are:
the Civil Action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue in the criminal action
the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.

However because of intimate correlation of the two proceedings and the possibility of the Land Authority in
deciding in favor of Petitioner which will terminate or suspend Private Respondents Right to Eject Petitioner, the
SC gave the lower court and advise. This advice became the which became the basis for deciding the case.
Faced with these distinct possibilities, the more prudent course for the trial court to have taken is to hold the
ejectment proceedings in abeyance until after a determination of the administrative case. Indeed, logic and
pragmatism, if not jurisprudence dictate such move. To allow the parties to undergo trial notwithstanding the
possibility of petitioner’s right of possession being upheld in the pending administrative case is to needlessly
require not only the parties but the court as well to expend time, effort and money in what may turn out to be a
sheer exercise of futility. Thus, 1 AM Jur 2d tells us:

The court in which an action is pending may, in the exercise of a sound discretion, upon proper application for a
stay of that action, hold the action in abeyance to abide the outcome of another pending in another court,
especially where the parties and the issues are the same, for there is power inherent in every court to control the
disposition of cases on its dockets with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. Where
the rights parties to the second action cannot be properly determined until the questions raised in the first action
are settled the second action should be stayed. (at page 622)

While the rule is properly applicable for instances involving two [2] court actions, the existence in the instant case
of the same consideration of identity of parties and issues, economy of time and effort for the court, the counsels
and the parties as well as the need to resolve the parties right of possession before the ejectment case may be
properly determined, justifies the rule’s analogous application to the case at bar.

Fortich-Celdran, et al vs. Caldran, et al, 19 SCRA 502, provides another analogous situation. In sustaining the
assailed order of the then CFI of Misamis Oriental ordering the suspension of the criminal case for falsification of
public document against several persons, among them the subscribing officer Santiago Catane until the civil case
involving the issue of the genuineness of the alleged forged document shall have been decided, this Court cited as
a reason therefor its own action on administrative charges against said Santiago Catane, as follows:

It should be mentioned here also that an administrative case filed in this Court against Santiago Catane upon the
same charge was held by Us in Abeyance, thus:
“As it appears that the genuineness of the document allegedly forged by respondent attorneys in Administrative
Case No. 77 (Richard Ignacio Celdran vs. Santiago Catane, etc, et al.) is necessarily involved in Civil Case No. R-3397
of the Cebu CFI, action on the herein complaint is withheld until that litigation has finally been decided.
Complainant Celdran shall inform the Court about such decision.”(SC minute resolution April 27, 1962 in Adm Case
No. 77, Richard Ignacio Celdran vs. Santiago Catane, etc. et. al)
If a pending civil case may be considered to be in the nature of a prejudicial question to an administrative case. We
see no reason why the reverse may bot be so considered in the proper case, such as in the petition at bar.

The SC even noted the Wisdom of Its advice.

Finally, events occurring during the pendency of the petition attest to the wisdom of the conclusion herein
reached. For in the Manifestation filed by counsel for petitioner, it was stated that he intervenor Land Authority
which later became the Department of Agrarian REform had promulgated a decision in the administrative case
affirming the cancellation of Agreement to Sell issued in favor of the private respondent. Wit this development,
the folly of allowing the ejectment case to proceed is too evident to need further elaboration.

JULIANA P. YAP, Petitioner, G.R. No. 101236

vs. January 30, 1992
MATIN PARAS AND ALFREDO D. BARCELONA, SR.,
Judge of the 3rd MTC of Glan Malapatan, South Cotabato, Respondent.

According to Yap, Paras sold IN 1971 to her his share in the intestate estate for P300.00. The sale was evidenced
by a private document. Nineteen years later, (in 1990), Paras sold the same property to Santiago Saya-ang for
P5,000.00. This was evidenced by a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale.

When Yap learned of the second sale, she filed a complaint for estafa against Paras and Saya-ang with the Office
of the Provincial Prosecutor of General Santos City. On the same date, she filed a complaint for the nullification
of the said sale with the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City.
After investigation, the Provincial Prosecutor instituted a criminal complaint for estafa against Paras with the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Glan-Malapatan, South Cotabato, presided by Judge Alfredo D. Barcelona, Sr.,
who dismissed the criminal case on the ground that the issue in the civil case is prejudicial to the criminal case
for estafa.
Issue: Is the Judge correct in motu proprio dismissing the criminal case?
Ruling: The judge is wrong. First, he should not have dismissed the criminal case but only suspended it. Second,
it was wrong for him to dismiss the criminal case outright, since it requires a motion first from the proper party.
The rule provides: Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. — A petition for suspension of the
criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of
the fiscal or the court conducting the preliminary investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in court
for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before the prosecution
rests. Third, there is actually no prejudicial question here.
Anent the issue of prejudicial question, the rule provides that:
Section 5, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended provides:
Sec. 5. Elements of prejudicial question. — 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.
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.
It was held that "for a civil case to be considered prejudicial to a criminal action as to cause the suspension of
the criminal action pending the determination of the civil action, it must appear not only that the civil case
involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution is based, but also that the resolution of the issues
raised in said civil action would be necessarily determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused".
Indeed, the civil case at bar does not involve the same facts upon which the criminal action is based. There was
no motion for suspension in the case at bar; and no less importantly, the respondent judge had not been
informed of the defense Paras was raising in the civil action. Judge Barcelona could not have ascertained then if
the issue raised in the civil action would determine the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case.

Mercado vs. Tan

337 SCRA 122

FACTS:

Dr. Vicent Mercado was previously married with Thelma Oliva in 1976 before he contracted marriage with
Consuelo Tan in 1991 which the latter claims she did not know. Tan filed bigamy against Mercado and after a
month the latter filed an action for declaration of nullity of marriage against Oliva. The decision in 1993 declared
marriage between Mercado and Oliva null and void.

ISSUE: Whether Mercado committed bigamy in spite of filing the declaration of nullity of the former marriage.

HELD:

A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is necessary before a subsequent one can be legally
contracted. One who enters into a subsequent marriage without first obtaining such judicial declaration is guilty of
bigamy. This principle applies even if the earlier union is characterized by statute as “void.”
In the case at bar, Mercado only filed the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Oliva right after Tan filed
bigamy case. Hence, by then, the crime had already been consummated. He contracted second marriage without
the judicial declaration of the nullity. The fact that the first marriage is void from the beginning is not a defense in
a bigamy charge.