Prejudicial Question

G.R. No. 188767, July 24, 2013

SPOUSES ARGOVAN AND FLORIDA GADITANO, vs SAN MIGUEL
CORPORATION,
A prejudicial question generally comes into play in a situation where a civil action and a
criminal action are both pending and there exists in the former an issue which 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 conflicting decisions.
11

Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure states the two elements necessary
for a civil case to be considered a prejudicial question, to wit:
Section 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. (Emphasis supplied).
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 that the
other element or characteristic is satisfied. 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. 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 first before taking up the
criminal case, the civil case does not involve a prejudicial question. Neither is there a
prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal action can, according to law, proceed
independently of each other.
12

The issue in the criminal case is whether the petitioner is guilty of estafa and violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22, while in the civil case, it is whether AsiaTrust Bank had lawfully garnished
the P378,000.00 from petitioners savings account.
The subject of the civil case is the garnishment by AsiaTrust Bank of petitioners savings
account.1wphi1 Based on petitioners account, they deposited the check given to them by
Fatima in their savings account. The amount of said check was initially credited to petitioners
savings account but the Fatima check was later on dishonored because there was an alleged
alteration in the name of the payee. As a result, the bank debited the amount of the check from
petitioners savings account. Now, petitioners seek to persuade us that had it not been for the
unlawful garnishment, the funds in their savings account would have been sufficient to cover a
check they issued in favor of SMC.
The material facts surrounding the civil case bear no relation to the criminal investigation
being conducted by the prosecutor. The prejudicial question in the civil case involves the
dishonor of another check. SMC is not privy to the nature of the alleged materially altered
check leading to its dishonor and the eventual garnishment of petitioners savings account. The
source of the funds of petitioners savings account is no longer SMCs concern. The matter is
between petitioners and Asia Trust Bank. On the other hand, the issue in the preliminary
investigation is whether petitioners issued a bad check to SMC for the payment of beer
products.
The gravamen of the offense punished by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is the act of making and
issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment.
13

Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 punishes the mere act of issuing a worthless check. The law did not
look either at the actual ownership of the check or of the account against which it was made,
drawn, or issued, or at the intention of the drawee, maker or issuer.
14
The thrust of the law is to
prohibit the making of worthless checks and putting them into circulation.
15

Even if the trial court in the civil case declares Asia Trust Bank liable for the unlawful
garnishment of petitioners savings account, petitioners cannot be automatically adjudged free
from criminal liability for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, because the mere issuance of
worthless checks with knowledge of the insufficiency of funds to support the checks is in itself
the offense.
16

Furthermore, three notices of dishonor were sent to petitioners, who then, should have
immediately funded the check. When they did not, their liabilities under the bouncing checks
law attached. Such liability cannot be affected by the alleged prejudicial question because their
failure to fund the check upon notice of dishonour is itself the offense.
In the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, deceit and
damage are additional and essential elements of the offense. It is the fraud or deceit employed
by the accused in issuing a worthless check that is penalized.
17
A prima facie presumption of
deceit arises when a check is dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds.
18
Records show
that a notice of dishonor as well as demands for payment, were sent to petitioners. The
presumption of deceit applies, and petitioners must overcome this presumption through
substantial evidence. These issues may only be threshed out in a criminal investigation which
must proceed independently of the civil case.
Based on the foregoing, we rule that the resolution or the issue raised in the civil action is not
determinative or the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal investigation against
them. There is no necessity that the civil case be determined firrst before taking up the
criminal complaints.