View full case

DREAMWORK CONSTRUCTION v. CLEOFE S. JANIOLA

FACTS:

Petitioner Dreamwork Construction, Inc. filed a complaint against private respondent Cleofe S. Janiola for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22) with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Las Piñas City. Petitioner also filed a criminal information for violation of BP 22 against private respondent with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC). The checks involved in the criminal cases were issued in consideration of a construction agreement between the parties.

In a separate civil complaint, private respondent and her husband filed a case for rescission of the construction agreement and damages against petitioner. Private respondent then filed a motion to suspend the proceedings in the criminal cases, claiming that the civil and criminal cases involved similar facts and issues that raised a prejudicial question. Petitioner opposed the suspension, arguing that there was no prejudicial question and that the civil case was filed after the criminal case.

The MTC granted the motion to suspend proceedings, stating that if the civil case determined the rescission of the contract and nullification of the checks, the criminal cases for violation of BP 22 must be dismissed. The MTC denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner appealed the orders to the RTC, which affirmed the decision of the MTC, stating that the civil case posed a prejudicial question despite being filed after the criminal case. Petitioner now seeks the reversal of the decision.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether a civil action must precede the filing of a criminal action for a prejudicial question to exist.

  2. Whether there is an apparent conflict between the provisions of the Rules of Court and the Civil Code regarding the existence of a prejudicial question.

  3. Whether the interpretation of Art. 36 of the Civil Code and Sec. 7 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court should harmonize both provisions of law.

  4. Whether the circumstances indicate that the filing of the civil action and the subsequent move to suspend the criminal proceedings were a mere afterthought and instituted to delay the criminal proceedings.

  5. Whether there is a prejudicial question that would justify the suspension of the proceedings in the criminal case.

  6. Whether the agreement surrounding the issuance of dishonored checks is irrelevant to the prosecution for violation of BP 22.

  7. Whether lack of valuable consideration for the issuance of checks is material to the success of a prosecution for violation of BP 22.

  8. Whether a civil case declaring a construction agreement void for lack of consideration affects the prosecution of the accused in a criminal case for violation of BP 22.

RULING:

  1. Yes, a civil action must precede the filing of a criminal action for a prejudicial question to exist. The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure and the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure both provide that the civil action must be previously instituted before the criminal action in order to create a prejudicial question. This is to avoid two conflicting decisions and to ensure that the resolution of the civil issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.

  2. No, there is no apparent conflict between the provisions of the Rules of Court and the Civil Code. The Court interpreted the phrase "previously instituted" in the Rules of Court as a qualification that the civil action must precede the criminal action in order to create a prejudicial question. This interpretation is consistent with the principle of statutory construction that a change in phraseology by amendment indicates a legislative intent to change the meaning of the provision. Furthermore, the interpretation harmonizes the provisions of the Rules of Court and the Civil Code to form a complete, coherent, and intelligible system.

  3. Yes, the interpretation of Art. 36 of the Civil Code and Sec. 7 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court should harmonize both provisions of law in order to give effect to all relevant provisions of law.

  4. Yes, the circumstances indicate that the filing of the civil action and the subsequent move to suspend the criminal proceedings were a mere afterthought and instituted to delay the criminal proceedings.

  5. No, there is no prejudicial question that would justify the suspension of the proceedings in the criminal case.

  6. The agreement surrounding the issuance of dishonored checks is irrelevant to the prosecution for violation of BP 22. The purpose for which the check was issued and any terms and conditions relating to its issuance are immaterial. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is what is punishable under BP 22.

  7. Lack of valuable consideration for the issuance of checks is not material to the success of a prosecution for violation of BP 22. Upon issuance of a check, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the same was issued for valuable consideration.

  8. A civil case declaring a construction agreement void for lack of consideration does not affect the prosecution of the accused in a criminal case for violation of BP 22. The fact that the accused issued checks which were subsequently dishonored for insufficient funds is subject to prosecution under BP 22.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The 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 must precede the criminal action and requires a decision before a final judgment can be rendered in the criminal action with which said question is closely connected.

  • A statute should be construed not only to be consistent with itself but also to harmonize with other laws on the same subject matter, as to form a complete, coherent, and intelligible system.

  • Every effort must be made to harmonize seemingly conflicting laws. Resort to choosing which law to apply is only necessary when harmonization is impossible.

  • The circumstances surrounding the filing of a civil action and the subsequent move to suspend the criminal proceedings can indicate whether they were instituted as an afterthought and for delay.

  • 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.

  • The fact that there exists a valid contract or agreement to support the crime punishable under BP 22 is not necessary for the prosecution of the criminal action.

  • The agreement surrounding the issuance of dishonored checks is irrelevant to the prosecution for violation of BP 22. (Mejia v. People)

  • Lack of valuable consideration for the issuance of checks is not material to the success of a prosecution for violation of BP 22. (Lee v. Court of Appeals)

  • The purpose for which a check was issued and any terms and conditions relating to its issuance are immaterial to the prosecution for violation of BP 22. (Lee v. Court of Appeals)

  • The fact that a civil case declares a contract void for lack of consideration does not affect the prosecution of the accused in a criminal case for violation of BP 22. (Lee v. Court of Appeals)