Ching vs. CA

ALFREDO CHING VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ZOSIMO Z. ANGELES, RTC- BR.
58, MAKATI, METRO MANILA, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ALLIED BANKING
CORPORATION
G.R. No. 110844 | April 27, 2000 | BUENA, J.
A prejudicial question is one that 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.
More simply, for the court to appreciate the pendency of a prejudicial question, the law, in no
uncertain terms, requires the concurrence of two essential requisites, to wit:
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.
FACTS:
On 04 February 1992, petitioner Alfredo Ching was charged before the RTC-Makati with 4
counts of estafa punishable under Article 315 par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to
Presidential Decree 115, otherwise known as the "Trust Receipts Law". This is because the
petitioner having executed a trust receipt agreement in favor of Allied Banking Corporation in
consideration of the receipt by the said accused of certain goods, under the terms of which the
accused agreed to sell the same for cash with the express obligation to remit to the complainant
bank the proceeds of the sale and/or to turn over the goods, if not sold, on demand. However,
the accused, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate, misapply and convert to his
own personal use and benefit the said goods and/or the proceeds of the sale thereof, and
despite repeated demands, failed and refused and still fails and refuses, to account for and/or
remit the proceeds of sale thereof to the Allied Banking Corporation.
On 05 March 1992, petitioner Ching, together with Philippine Blooming Mills Co. Inc., filed a
case before the RTC-Manila, Branch 53, for declaration of nullity of documents and for
damages. Subsequently, Ching filed a petition before the RTC-Makati, Branch 58, for the
suspension of the criminal proceedings on the ground of prejudicial question in a civil action.
RTC-Makati thereafter denied the petition, which as a result, petitioner moved to reconsider but
the same was also denied.
Aggrieved by these orders, petitioner brought before the Court of Appeals a petition
for certiorari and prohibition which sought to declare the nullity of the aforementioned orders and
to prohibit the RTC-Makati from conducting further proceedings in the criminal cases. CA denied
the same ruling that the declaration of nullity of the trust receipts in question is not a prejudicial
question to the criminal case pending before the respondent court.
Consequently, petitioner filed an amended complaint before the RTC-Manila, declaring the trust
receipts as null and void for failure to express the true intent and agreement of the parties, and
declaring the transaction subject hereof as one of pure and simple loan without any trust receipt
agreement and/or not one involving a trust receipt, and accordingly declaring all the documents
thereto as mere loan documents.
Through the expediency of Rule 45, petitioner seeks the intervention of this Court to render
judgment reversing the decision and resolution and to order the suspension of pending criminal
cases before RTC- Makati until final determination of the pending civil case before RTC-Manila.
ISSUE:
WON the civil action for declaration of nullity of documents and for damages constitute a
prejudicial question to the criminal cases for estafa filed against petitioner Ching
RULING:
NO. There is no prejudicial question exists in the present case. As defined, a prejudicial
question is one that 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, and for it to suspend the criminal
action, it must appear not only that said case involves facts intimately related to those upon
which the criminal prosecution would be based but also that in the resolution of the issue or
issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be
determined. It comes into play generally 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 criminal action 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.
More simply, for the court to appreciate the pendency of a prejudicial question, the law, in no
uncertain terms, requires the concurrence of two essential requisites, to wit:
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.
Verily, under the prevailing circumstances, the alleged prejudicial question in the civil case for
declaration of nullity of documents and for damages, does not juris et de jure determine the
guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal action for estafa. Assuming arguendo that the
court hearing the civil aspect of the case adjudicates that the transaction entered into between
the parties was not a trust receipt agreement, nonetheless the guilt of the accused could still be
established and his culpability under penal laws determined by other evidence. To put it
differently, even on the assumption that the documents are declared of null, it does not ipso
facto follow that such declaration of nullity shall exonerate the accused from criminal
prosecution and liability.
Applying the foregoing principles, the criminal liability of the accused for violation of Article 315
1(b) of the RPC, may still be shown through the presentation of evidence to the effect that: (a)
the accused received the subject goods in trust or under the obligation to sell the same and to
remit the proceeds thereof to Allied Banking Corporation, or to return the goods, if not sold; (b)
that accused Ching misappropriated or converted the goods and/or the proceeds of the sale; (c)
that accused Ching performed such acts with abuse of confidence to the damage and prejudice
of Allied Banking Corporation; and (d) that demand was made by the bank to herein petitioner.
Furthermore, it must be stressed that an act violative of a trust receipt agreement is only one
mode of committing estafa under the abovementioned provision of the RPC. Stated differently, a
violation of a trust receipt arrangement is not the sole basis for incurring liability under Article
315 1 (b) of the Code.

Ching vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ching vs. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ching vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ALFREDO CHING VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ZOSIMO Z. ANGELES, RTC- BR.

You might also like