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.