Criminal Procedure
Dreamwork Construction v. Cleofe Janiola
G.R. No. 184861
June 30, 2009
FACTS:
Petitioner filed a Complaint for violation of BP 22 against private respondent Cleofe
Janiola with the Office of the City Prosecutor. Thereafter petitioner filed a criminal
information for violation of BP 22 against private respondent with the MTC.
Private respondent then 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. The case was filed with the RTC. 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 in the Criminal
Case, claiming that the civil case posed a prejudicial question as against the criminal cases.
The MTC granted the Motion, and denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
The RTC denied petitioner’s appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether there is a prejudicial question in the civil case
RULING:
NONE. 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 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.