View full case

EDDIE B. SABANDAL v. FELIPE S. TONGCO

FACTS:

The case involves a petition to suspend the criminal proceedings against petitioner Eddie B. Sabandal, who is charged with eleven counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. On February 18, 1989, Sabandal entered into a memorandum of agreement with respondent Philippines Today, Inc. for the distribution of the newspaper Philippines Today in Bacolod City and designated towns in Negros Occidental. Under the agreement, Sabandal was supposed to make advance payments for one month of deliveries and was entitled to a percentage of return and a rebate for each copy sold. After the agreement was executed, Philippines Today regularly delivered the newspaper copies to Sabandal. However, in partial payment for the deliveries, Sabandal issued several checks to the respondent, which were subsequently dishonored by the banks due to insufficient funds and/or closed accounts. Despite demands for payment, Sabandal failed to pay. In December 1992, Philippines Today filed a complaint against Sabandal, resulting in the filing of eleven criminal cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. Three years later, Sabandal filed a civil case against Philippines Today for specific performance, recovery of overpayment, and damages. He also filed a motion to suspend trial in the criminal cases, claiming the existence of a prejudicial question. The trial court denied the motion, and the denial was subsequently affirmed in a motion for reconsideration. Thus, Sabandal filed this petition seeking the suspension of the criminal proceedings based on a prejudicial question.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether a prejudicial question exists to warrant the suspension of the trial of the criminal cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22

  2. Whether the filing of the civil case was a ploy to delay the resolution of the criminal cases

RULING:

  1. The petition has no merit. A prejudicial question exists when the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action, and the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. In this case, the issue in the criminal cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 is whether the accused knowingly issued worthless checks, while the issue in the civil action for specific performance, overpayment, and damages is whether the complainant overpaid his obligations to the respondent. The resolution of the civil case does not determine the criminal responsibility of the accused. Therefore, there is no prejudicial question.

  2. The filing of the civil case was indeed a ploy to delay the resolution of the criminal cases. The civil action was instituted three years after the institution of the criminal charges, and it appears to be an afterthought to delay the proceedings. However, the petitioner may still raise his claim of overpayment as a defense during the trial of the criminal cases.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A prejudicial question exists when the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action, and the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.

  • A civil action is considered prejudicial to a criminal case and can cause the suspension of the criminal proceedings if it involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined, and jurisdiction to try said question is lodged in another tribunal.

  • The mere issuance of worthless checks with knowledge of the insufficiency of funds to support the checks is itself an offense under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.

  • The filing of a civil action may be considered a ploy to delay the resolution of criminal cases if it is instituted after the institution of the criminal charges and appears to be an afterthought.