Scribd
Upload
162 views3 pages

Dreamwork-Construction-v.-Janiola Digest

The petitioner filed criminal charges against the private respondent for violating BP 22 related to dishonored checks. The private respondent then filed a civil case seeking rescission of a construction agreement between the parties and damages. The private respondent claimed the civil and criminal cases involved similar issues such that resolving the civil case would determine the criminal case. The MTC agreed and suspended the criminal proceedings. The petitioner appealed. The RTC denied the appeal, finding a prejudicial question. However, the Supreme Court ruled there was no prejudicial question because resolving the civil case would not determine an element of the crime of violating BP 22. The elements of that crime involve knowingly issuing a check without sufficient funds, not the validity of any related agreement.

Uploaded by

Jesa Formaran
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
162 views3 pages

Dreamwork-Construction-v.-Janiola Digest

The petitioner filed criminal charges against the private respondent for violating BP 22 related to dishonored checks. The private respondent then filed a civil case seeking rescission of a construction agreement between the parties and damages. The private respondent claimed the civil and criminal cases involved similar issues such that resolving the civil case would determine the criminal case. The MTC agreed and suspended the criminal proceedings. The petitioner appealed. The RTC denied the appeal, finding a prejudicial question. However, the Supreme Court ruled there was no prejudicial question because resolving the civil case would not determine an element of the crime of violating BP 22. The elements of that crime involve knowingly issuing a check without sufficient funds, not the validity of any related agreement.

Uploaded by

Jesa Formaran
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

DREAMWORK CONSTRUCTION VS.

JANIOLA
G.R. NO. 184861
JUNE 30, 2009

FACTS

Petitioner corporation filed a Complaint Affidavit for violation of BP 22 against private respondent
Cleofe S. Janiola with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Las Piñas City. Correspondingly,
petitioner filed a criminal information for violation of BP 22 against private respondent with the
MTC. Private respondent, joined by her husband, instituted a civil complaint against petitioner by
filing a Complaint for the rescission of an alleged construction agreement between the parties, as
well as for damages. Notably, the checks, subject of the criminal cases before the MTC, were
issued in consideration of the construction agreement.

Thereafter, private respondent filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings, alleging that the civil and
criminal cases involved facts and issues similar or intimately related such that in the resolution of
the issues in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.
In other words, private respondent claimed that the civil case posed a prejudicial question as
against the criminal cases. Later, the MTC issued its Order granting the Motion to Suspend
Proceedings, and reasoned that:

Should the trial court declare the rescission of contract and the nullification of the checks
issued as the same are without consideration, then the instant criminal cases for alleged
violation of BP 22 must be dismissed. The belated filing of the civil case by the herein
accused did not detract from the correctness of her cause, since a motion for suspension
of a criminal action may be filed at any time before the prosecution rests (Section 6, Rule
111, Revised Rules of Court).

Petitioner appealed the Orders to the RTC, which issued the assailed decision denying the petition.
On the issue of the existence of a prejudicial question, the RTC ruled:
Additionally, it must be stressed that the requirement of a "previously" filed civil case is
intended merely to obviate delays in the conduct of the criminal proceedings. Incidentally,
no clear evidence of any intent to delay by private respondent was shown. The criminal
proceedings are still in their initial stages when the civil action was instituted. And, the
fact that the civil action was filed after the criminal action was instituted does not render
the issues in the civil action any less prejudicial in character.

ISSUE & RULING

WHETHER OR NOT THERE EXIST A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION

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.

To reiterate, the elements of a prejudicial question under Sec. 7 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court
are: (1) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the
issue raised in the subsequent criminal action; and (2) the resolution of such issue determines
whether or not the criminal action may proceed.

Petitioner argues that the second element of a prejudicial question is absent in this case. Thus, such
rule cannot apply to the present controversy. Private respondent, on the other hand, claims that if
the construction agreement between the parties is declared null and void for want of consideration,
the checks issued in consideration of such contract would become mere scraps of paper and cannot
be the basis of a criminal prosecution. We find for petitioner.

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.

Undeniably, 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. Thus, this Court has held in a long line of cases that the agreement surrounding the
issuance of dishonored checks is irrelevant to the prosecution for violation of BP 22. In Mejia v.
People, we ruled:

It must be emphasized that the gravamen of the offense charge is the issuance of a bad
check. The purpose for which the check was issued, the terms and conditions relating to its
issuance, or any agreement surrounding such issuance are irrelevant to the prosecution
and conviction of petitioner. To determine the reason for which checks are issued, or the
terms and conditions for their issuance, will greatly erode the faith the public reposes in
the stability and commercial value of checks as currency substitutes, and bring havoc in
trade and in banking communities. The clear intention of the framers of B.P. 22 is to make
the mere act of issuing a worthless check malum prohibitum.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy