Professional Documents
Culture Documents
alternative remedies, both founded upon the explained by Justice Florenz D. Regalado (ret.),
identical state of facts, these remedies are not former chairman of the committee tasked with Furthermore, the fact that the Rules do not
considered inconsistent remedies. In such the revision of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. allow the reservation of civil actions in BP 22
case, the invocation of one remedy is not an He clarified that the special rule on BP 22 cases cases cannot deprive private complainant of
election which will bar the other, unless the was added, because the dockets of the courts the right to protect her interests in the criminal
suit upon the remedy first invoked shall reach were clogged with such litigations; creditors action for estafa. Nothing in the current law or
the stage of final adjudication or unless by the were using the courts as collectors. While rules on BP 22 vests the jurisdiction of the
invocation of the remedy first sought to be ordinarily no filing fees were charged for actual corresponding civil case exclusively in the court
enforced, the plaintiff shall have gained an damages in criminal cases, the rule on the trying the BP 22 criminal case. [25]
advantage thereby or caused detriment or necessary inclusion of a civil action with the
change of situation to the other. [16] It must be payment of filing fees based on the face value In promulgating the Rules, this Court did not
pointed out that ordinarily, election of remedies of the check involved was laid down to intend to leave the offended parties without
is not made until the judicial proceedings has prevent the practice of creditors of using the any remedy to protect their interests in estafa
gone to judgment on the merits. [17] threat of a criminal prosecution to collect on cases. Its power to promulgate the Rules of
their credit free of charge.[21] Court is limited in the sense that rules "shall
"Consonant with these rulings, this Court, not diminish, increase or modify substantive
through Justice J.B.L. Reyes, opined that while Clearly, it was not the intent of the special rule rights."[26] Private complainant's intervention in
some American authorities hold that the mere to preclude the prosecution of the civil action the prosecution of estafa is justified not only
initiation of proceedings constitutes a binding that corresponds to the estafa case, should the for the prosecution of her interests, but also for
choice of remedies that precludes pursuit of latter also be filed. The crimes of estafa and the speedy and inexpensive administration of
alternative courses, the better rule is that no violation of BP 22 are different and distinct justice as mandated by the Constitution. [27]
binding election occurs before a decision on from each other. There is no identity of
the merits is had or a detriment to the other offenses involved, for which legal jeopardy in The trial court was, therefore, correct in holding
party supervenes.[18] This is because the one case may be invoked in the other. The that the private prosecutor may intervene
principle of election of remedies is discordant offenses charged in the informations are before the RTC in the proceedings for estafa,
with the modern procedural concepts perfectly distinct from each other in point of despite the necessary inclusion of the
embodied in the Code of Civil Procedure which law, however nearly they may be connected in corresponding civil action in the proceedings
permits a party to seek inconsistent remedies point of fact.[22] for violation of BP 22 pending before the MTC.
in his claim for relief without being required to A recovery by the offended party under one
elect between them at the pleading stage of What Section 1(b) of the Rules of Court remedy, however, necessarily bars that under
the litigation."[19] prohibits is the reservation to file the the other. Obviously stemming from the
corresponding civil action. The criminal action fundamental rule against unjust enrichment,[28]
In the present cases before us, the institution shall be deemed to include the corresponding this is in essence the rationale for the
of the civil actions with the estafa cases and civil action. "[U]nless a separate civil action proscription in our law against double recovery
the inclusion of another set of civil actions with has been filed before the institution of the for the same act or omission.
the BP 22 cases are not exactly repugnant or criminal action, no such civil action can be
inconsistent with each other. Nothing in the instituted after the criminal action has been WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED and
Rules signifies that the necessary inclusion of a filed as the same has been included the assailed Order AFFIRMED. Costs against
civil action in a criminal case for violation of therein."[23] In the instant case, the criminal petitioner.
the Bouncing Checks Law[20] precludes the action for estafa was admittedly filed prior to
institution in an estafa case of the the criminal case for violation of BP 22, with SO ORDERED.
corresponding civil action, even if both offenses the corresponding filing fees for the inclusion of
relate to the issuance of the same check.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio-Morales, and
Garcia, JJ., concur.
Corona, J., on official leave.
G.R. NO. L-22237, May 31, 1974 1920, to Bautista vs. Navarro, [3] promulgated in have to abide by what is commanded by the
1972, betray its weakness. What is more, an procedural rules. First, he set the date for
EUFRACIO D. ROJAS, PETITIONER, VS. applicable Civil Code provision, as will be arraignment.[8] After the plea of not guilty, he
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND shown, fails to lend support. [4] The petition fixed the date of trial.[9] Then came this petition
HONORABLE FEDERICO ALIKPALA, IN HIS must fail. for certiorari and prohibition, the former to
CAPACITY AS JUDGE OF THE COURT OF annul and set aside the aforesaid orders and
FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, BRANCH It is clear from the undisputed facts that the the latter to enjoin and restrain both the People
XXII, RESPONDENTS. filing by the offended party, the CMS Estate, of the Philippines and respondent Judge from
Inc., with the City Fiscal of Manila of five estafa proceeding in the instant case until after the
DECISION charges against petitioner, resulted in the filing determination of the aforesaid civil case.
of the information made mention of at the Respondents were required to answer, and
FERNANDO, J.: outset. While at first assigned to the then upon petitioner posting a bond, a preliminary
Judge Jesus Perez, it was subsequently injunction was issued. In their answer it was
In this certiorari and prohibition proceeding,
transferred to respondent Judge upon the alleged: "(g) That the resolution of the liability
petitioner would have this Court nullify two
former's elevation to the Court of Appeals. of the defendant in the civil case on the
orders of respondent Judge, one for his
Thereafter, the challenged orders first for eleventh cause of action based on the
arraignment and the other for his trial. He is
arraignment and then for the date for trial were fraudulent misrepresentation that the chattel
the accused in a pending criminal case for
issued, notwithstanding an opposition by mortgage the defendant executed in favor of
violation of Article 319 of the Revised Penal
petitioner.[5] The basis for such opposition, as the said CMS Estate, Inc. on February 20, 1957,
Code,[1] for executing a new chattel mortgage
noted, was that there was likewise, at the that his D-6 'Caterpillar' Tractor with Serial No.
on personal property in favor of another party
insistence of the offended party, a civil case 9-U-6565 was 'free from all liens and
without the consent of the previous mortgagee
against petitioner in the court of first instance encumbrances' will not determine the criminal
and duly noted in the record of the Register of
of Manila for the revocation of a management liability of the accused in the said Criminal
Deeds. He would plead, however, before
contract.[6] Included in such complaint was an Case No. 56042 for violation of paragraph 2 of
respondent Judge, and now with us, that no
eleventh cause of action, namely the execution Article 319 of the Revised Penal Code. * * * (i)
arraignment could be set, as thereafter the
by petitioner of a chattel mortgage on a That, even granting for the sake of argument, a
offended party filed a civil case for the
Caterpillar tractor, with his explicit affirmance prejudicial question is involved in this case, the
termination of a management contract, one of
that it was free from all liens and fact remains that both the crime charged in the
the causes of action of which consisted of
encumbrances, when such was not the case at information in the criminal case and the
petitioner having executed a chattel mortgage
all, as the very same tractor was the subject of eleventh cause of action in the civil case are
when a prior chattel mortgage was still valid
a chattel mortgage in favor of the Davao based upon fraud, hence both the civil and
and subsisting, thus giving lie to his express
Lumber Company, of Davao City, to secure criminal cases could proceed independently of
manifestation that the property was free from
petitioner's obligation, still valid and subsisting the other pursuant to Article 33 of the new Civil
all liens and encumbrances. It was his
as of the date of his entering into the second Code which provides: 'In cases of defamation,
contention that the civil case was a prejudicial
mortgage.[7] Petitioner, as the accused in the fraud and physical injuries, a civil action for
question, a decision of which was necessary
criminal case under the Revised Penal Code damages, entirely separate and distinct from
before the criminal case could proceed. Both
arising from the same act imputed to him was the criminal action, may be brought by the
the petition as well as the memorandum
thus encouraged to assert that thereby, he injured party. Such civil action shall proceed
thereafter submitted would characterize the
could no longer be tried pending the independently of the criminal prosecution, and
challenged orders as amounting to a grave
termination of the civil suit, as a prejudicial shall require only a preponderance of
abuse of discretion, referring to what was
question was involved. evidence.' (j) That, therefore, the act of
termed as "well-settled principles and
respondent judge in issuing the orders referred
guideposts" on the subject. Petitioner's stand
Respondent Judge was of a different mind. He to in the instant petition was not made with
lacks solidity. The decisions of this Tribunal
saw to it that petitioner as the accused would 'grave abuse of discretion.'"[10]
from Berbari vs. Concepcion,[2] announced in
narration of facts, is intimately related to his whatsoever. The allegation then of a grave
The plea of respondent for the dismissal of this guilt or innocence of the charge of falsification abuse thereof is utterly devoid of merit.
petition, as intimated at the outset, finds being investigated by the Fiscal, it is true;
support in the applicable decisions of this however, resolution of the petition for 2. Moreover, there is, as pointed out in the
Tribunal. The petition, to repeat, must fail. annulment of the affidavit of adjudication, answer of respondents, another ground that
affirmative or otherwise, does not and will not militates in a well-nigh conclusive fashion
1. In a fairly recent decision, Zapanta vs. determine criminal responsibility in the against the pretension of petitioner. Article 33
Montesa,[11] Justice Dizon, speaking for the falsification case. Regardless of the outcome of the Civil Code, already referred to, explicitly
Court, stated: "We have heretofore defined a of the pending civil case for annulment of the provides: "In cases of defamation, fraud, and
prejudicial question as that which arises in a affidavit of adjudication, determination of the physical injuries, a civil action for damages,
case, the resolution of which is a logical charge of falsification would be based on the entirely separate and distinct from the criminal
antecedent of the issue involved therein, and truth or falsity of the narration of facts in the action, may be brought by the injured party.
the cognizance of which pertains to another affidavit of adjudication, * * * Therefore, the Such civil action shall proceed independently of
tribunal.* * * The prejudicial question we civil case aforementioned does not involve a the criminal prosecution, and shall require only
further said must be determinative of the prejudicial question."[16] Then came Benitez vs. a preponderance of evidence."[21] Here, fraud is
case before the court, and jurisdiction to try Concepcion, Jr.,[17] with facts even more the basis for both the civil and the criminal
the same must be lodged in another court. [12] It analogous. There it was shown that there was actions. They are, according to law, to proceed
is indispensable then for this petition to a civil case for annulment of a deed of independently. In the same way that the civil
succeed that the alleged prejudicial question mortgage where the issue was whether or not suit can be tried, the criminal prosecution has
must be determinative of the criminal case certain signatures were forged. There was also to run its course. This is an instance, as noted
before respondent Judge. It is not so in this a criminal case for falsification, the issue being by the respondents, whereby a codal provision
case. A more careful scrutiny of the applicable similar springing from the same facts. of undoubted applicability should prevail. The
decisions would explain why. Thus in Pisalbon Precisely, according to this Court, with Justice invocation of the doctrine on prejudicial
vs. Tesoro,[13] this Court, through Justice Jugo, Paredes as ponente, the fact "that the principal question is thus attended with futility. It is
stated: "The Court of First Instance of issues in both cases are the same" and did easily understandable why. It would be a
Pangasinan erred in holding that the criminal "arise from the same facts" would not show disservice to public interest if, under the
case should be suspended. In the present any necessity "that the civil case be circumstances disclosed, with the culpability of
proceedings, the civil case does not involve a determined first before taking up the criminal petitioner as the accused being dependent not
question prejudicial to the criminal case, for to case."[18] on what is shown in one of the causes of action
whomsoever the land may be awarded after all in a civil suit for revocation of the management
the evidence has been presented in the civil If there still be any doubts on the matter, what contract, but on whether or not he did commit
case, may not affect the alleged crime was said by Justice Barredo in Isip vs. an act punishable by law, the hand of criminal
committed by the notary public, which is the Gonzales[19] would dispel them. As he pointed prosecution would be stayed. What was done
subject of the criminal case. But, even out: "In other words, there is a prejudicial by respondent Judge then instead of being
supposing that both the civil and the criminal question only when the matter that has to be contrary to any juridical concept is to be
case involve the same question and one must priorly decided by another authority is one the commended if the basic policy underlying
precede the other, it should be the civil case cognizance of which pertains to that authority penal statutes is not to be frustrated.
which should be suspended rather than the and should not, under the circumstances, be
criminal, to await the result of the latter." [14] De passed upon by the court trying the criminal WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and
la Cruz vs. City Fiscal,[15] decided six years case."[20] That is not so in the litigation before prohibition is dismissed. The preliminary
later, reiterated such a view: "Now, with us. It becomes manifest therefore that there injunction issued by this Court is set aside.
respect to the annulment of the affidavit of was no error committed by respondent Judge in Costs against petitioner.
adjudication sought by Carmelita, the ordering the arraignment and setting the case
execution by Apolinario of said affidavit with its for trial. There was no abuse of discretion
Zaldivar, (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio,
Fernandez, and Aquino, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. L-22759, March 29, 1968 determination of the issue involved in Civil receipt whose annulment they sought in the
Case No. 6636 of the Court of First Instance of civil case was vitiated by fraud, duress or
MANUEL R. JIMENEZ, PETITIONER, VS. Quezon was a prejudicial question. The intimidation, their guilt could still be
HON. ALBERTO V. AVERIA, JUDGE OF THE respondent judge granted the motion in an established by other evidence showing, to the
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE order dated October 18, 1963. degree required by law, that they had actually
AND OFELIA V. TANG AND ESTEFANIA DE received from the complainant the sum of
LA CRUZ OLANDAY, RESPONDENTS. The petition now before Us is one for certiorari P20,000.00 with which to buy for him a fishing
predicated upon the preposition that in issuing boat, and that, instead of doing so, they
DECISION the order just mentioned, the respondent judge misappropriated the money and refused or
committed a grave abuse of discretion otherwise failed to return it to him upon
DIZON, J.: amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Properly, demand. The contention of the private
however, the action is for the issuance of a writ respondents herein would be tenable had they
In Criminal Case No. TM-235 of the Court of of mandamus, the relief prayed being for this been charged with falsification of the same
First Instance of Cavite respondents Ofelia V. Court "to order the Hon. Court of Cavite receipt involved in the civil action.
Tang and Estefania de la Cruz Olanday were Province to proceed with the case and to order
charged with estafa, the information filed alleg- the Hon. Court at Quezon Province to dismiss Were We to sanction the theory advanced by
ing that, having received from Manuel Jimenez the civil case". the respondents Tang and De la Cruz Olanday
the sum of P20,000.00 with which to purchase and adopted by the respondent judge, there
for him a fishing boat known as "Basnig", with The issue to be decided is whether the would hardly be a case for estafa that could be
the obligation on their part to return the money determination of the issue raised in the civil prosecuted speedily, it being the easiest thing
on January 30, 1963 in case they should fail to case mentioned heretofore is a prejudicial for the accused to block the proceedings by the
buy the fishing boat, they misappropriated the question, in the sense that it must be first simple expedient of filing an independent civil
amount aforesaid, to the damage and prejudice resolved before the proceedings in the criminal action against the complainant, raising therein
of Jimenez. case for estafa may proceed. the issue that he had not received from the
latter the amount alleged to have been mis-
Before arraignment, the accused filed Civil A prejudicial question has been defined to be appropriated. A claim to this effect is properly
Case No. 6636 against Jimenez in the Court of one which arises in a case, the resolution of a matter of defense to be interposed by the
First Instance of Quezon contesting the validity which (question) is a logical antecedent of the party charged in the criminal proceeding.
of a certain receipt signed by them on October issue involved in said case, and the cognizance
25, 1962 (Annex "A" of the present petition) of which pertains to another tribunal (Ency- WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered
wherein they acknowledged having received clopedia Juridical Espaola, p. 228). In People ordering the respondent Court of First Instance
from him the sum of P20,000.00 with which to vs. Aragon, G. R. No. L-5930, February 17, of Cavite to proceed without undue delay with
purchase for him a fishing boat and its acces- 1954, We held in connection with this subject the trial of Criminal Case No. TM-235, with the
sories, and the further sum of P240.00 as that the question claimed to be prejudicial in result that the order complained of suspending
agent's commission, with the obligation, on nature must be determinative of the case the proceedings therein until after Civil Case
their part, to return the aforesaid amounts on before the court, and that jurisdiction to try No. 6636 of the Court of First Instance of
January 30, 1963 in case they were unable to and resolved said question must be lodged in Quezon has been resolved is hereby set aside.
buy the fishing boat. Their complaint alleged another tribunal. With costs against the respondents except the
that they had never received any amount from respondent judge.
Jimenez and that their signatures on the Applying the above considerations to the
questioned receipt were secured by means of instant case, it will be readily seen that the Reyes, Acting C.J., Makalintal, Bengzon,
fraud, deceit and intimidation employed by alleged prejudicial question is not Zaldivar, Sanchez, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ.,
him. Several days later, they filed a motion in determinative of the guilt or innocence of the concur.
the aforementioned criminal action to suspend parties charged with estafa, because even on Castro, J., no part.
proceedings therein on the ground that the the assumption that the execution of the
G.R. Nos. L-50441-42 September 18, 1980 sale in Pichel's favor sought to be declared civil case involves the same facts upon which
valid was fictitious and inexistent. the criminal pro. prosecution is based, but also
ALENJANDRO RAS, petitioner, vs. HON. that the resolution of the issues raised in said
JAINAL D. RASUL, District Judge of the While Civil Case No. 73 was being tried before civil action would be necessary determinative
Court of First Instance of Basilan, and the Court of First Instance of Basilan, the of the guilt or innocence of the accused. 3
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. Provincial Fiscal of Basilan filed on or about
September 5, 1978 an Information for Estafa in On the basis of the issues raised in both the
TEEHANKEE, J.: the same court against Alejandro Ras arising criminal and civil cases against petitioner and
from the same alleged double sale subject in the light of the foregoing concepts of a
This is a petition brought by the petitioner to matter of the civil complaint filed by Luis prejudicial question, there indeed appears to
review and set aside the order of respondent Pichel. The case was docketed as Criminal Case be a prejudicial question in the case at bar,
Judge dated December 12, 1978 in Criminal No. 240 of the Court of First Instance of considering that petitioner Alejandro Ras'
Case No. 240 of the Court of First Instance of Basilan. On November 6, 1978, petitioner, defense (as defendant) in Civil Case No. 73 of
Basilan denying petitioner's motion as accused through counsel, filed a "Motion for Suspension the nullity and forgery of the alleged prior deed
therein to suspend proceedings due to the of Action" in said Criminal Case No. 240 of sale in favor of Luis Pichel (plaintiff in the
existence of a prejudicial question in Civil Case claiming that the same facts and issues were civil case and complaining witness in the
No. 73 of the same court. Finding the petition involved in both the civil and criminal case and criminal case) is based on the very same facts
and the Solicitor General's concurrence that the resolution of the issues in the civil which would be necessarily determinative of
therewith to be meritorious, this Court hereby case would necessarily be determinative of the petitioner Ras' guilt or innocence as accused in
grants the petition and accordingly sets aside guilt or innocence of the accused. The the criminal case. If the first alleged sale in
the questioned order and hereby enjoins the Provincial Fiscal of Basilan filed his opposition favor of Pichel is void or fictitious, then there
respondent Judge from further proceeding with on December 4, 1978. would be no double sale and petitioner would
Criminal Case No. 73 until Civil Case No. 240 is be innocent of the offense charged. A
finally decided and terminated. In his Order of December 12, 1978, the conviction in the criminal case (if it were
respondent judge saw no prejudicial question allowed to proceed ahead) would be a gross
A chronological statement of the antecedent and accordingly denied the motion. Hence, the injustice and would have to be set aside if it
facts follows: present petition. were finally decided in the civil action that
On or about April 27, 1978, Luis Pichel filed a indeed the alleged prior deed of sale was a
A prejudicial question is defined as that which forgery and spurious.
complaint against petitioner Alejandro Ras and arises in a case the resolution of which is a
a certain Bienvenido Martin before the Court of logical antecedent of the issue involved The Solicitor General in his comment expressed
First Instance of Basilan, docketed therein as therein, and the cognizance of which pertains his concurrence with the petition thus: "The
Civil Case No. 73 praying for the nullification of to another tribunal. The prejudicial question petitioner Alejandro Ras claims in his answer to
the deed of sale executed by Alejandro Ras in must be determinative of the case before the the complaint in Civil Case No. 73 that he had
favor of his codefendant Bienvenido Martin and court but the jurisdiction to try and resolve the never sold the property in litigation to the
for the declaration of the prior deed of sale question must be lodged in another court or plaintiff (Luis Pichel) and that his signatures in
allegedly executed in his favor by the tribunal 1 It is a question based on a fact the alleged deed of and that of his wife were
defendant Alejandro Ras as valid. distinct and separate from the crime but so forged by the plaintiff. It is, therefore,
intimately connected with it that it determines necessary that the truth or falsity of such claim
In their answer, the defendants (the Ras
the guilt or innocence of the accused. 2 be first determined because if his claim is true,
spouses) alleged that they never sold the
property to Pichel and that the signatures then he did not sell his property twice and no
For a civil case to be considered prejudicial to a estafa was committed. The question of nullity
appearing in the deed of sale in favor of criminal action as to cause the suspension of
plaintiff Pichel (in Civil Case No. 73) were of the sale is distinct and from the crime of
the criminal action pending the determination estafa (alleged double sale) but so intimately
forgeries and that therefore the alleged deed of of the civil, it must appear not only that the
connected with it that it determines the guilt or
innocence of herein petitioner in the c action."