Dreamwork Construction, Inc. vs. Janiola

For a prejudicial question to exist, Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure explicitly requires that the civil action be "previously instituted" before the "subsequent criminal action"; additionally, the resolution of a civil case for rescission of contract is not determinative of guilt in a criminal case for violation of BP 22, as the gravamen of the latter offense is the mere act of issuing a worthless check.

The legal dispute originated from a construction agreement between petitioner Dreamwork Construction, Inc. and private respondent Cleofe S. Janiola. In connection with this agreement, Janiola issued several checks to Dreamwork. When these checks were dishonored, Dreamwork initiated criminal proceedings against Janiola for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22). Subsequently, Janiola filed a separate civil action seeking to rescind the construction agreement, which then became the basis for her motion to suspend the ongoing criminal case.

• On October 18, 2004, Dreamwork Construction, Inc. filed a complaint-affidavit for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22) against Cleofe S. Janiola after checks she issued in consideration of a construction agreement were dishonored.
• On February 2, 2005, criminal informations for violation of BP 22 were filed against Janiola with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Las Piñas City.
• On September 20, 2006, almost two years after the criminal complaint was filed, Janiola instituted a civil action against Dreamwork for the rescission of the construction agreement, docketed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
• On July 25, 2007, Janiola filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings in the criminal cases, claiming that the pending civil case for rescission posed a prejudicial question that must first be resolved.
• The MTC granted the motion to suspend, and this decision was subsequently affirmed by the RTC on appeal.

• No prejudicial question exists because the civil case was filed after the criminal action was instituted, failing to meet the "previously instituted" requirement under Section 7, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court.
• The belated filing of the civil case was a mere dilatory tactic, which the procedural rule on prejudicial questions is designed to prevent.
• The resolution of the civil case for rescission of contract is not determinative of Janiola's guilt in the BP 22 case, as the crime is malum prohibitum and punishes the mere act of issuing a worthless check.

• The civil case for rescission of the construction agreement and the criminal cases for BP 22 involve similar and intimately related facts and issues.
• The resolution of the civil case would determine the guilt or innocence of the accused, because if the contract is declared void for lack of consideration, the checks issued would have no legal basis, thereby negating criminal liability.
• Article 36 of the Civil Code allows for the suspension of a criminal case that "may proceed," suggesting that a prejudicial question can arise even if the civil action is filed during the pendency of the criminal case.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether a prejudicial question can arise from a civil action that was instituted after the filing of the related criminal action.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the resolution of a civil action for rescission of contract based on lack of consideration is determinative of criminal liability for violation of BP 22.

• Procedural:
  • No. The Court held that for a prejudicial question to exist, the civil action must be instituted prior to the criminal action. The clear and plain language of Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, which uses the phrases "previously instituted civil action" and "subsequent criminal action," establishes a strict temporal sequence. The Court harmonized this rule with Article 36 of the Civil Code by interpreting the latter's phrase "or may proceed" as referring to the proper timing for filing a motion to suspend (i.e., during preliminary investigation or before the prosecution rests at trial), not as an exception to the requirement that the civil case must be filed first.
• Substantive:
  • No. The Court ruled that the outcome of the civil action for rescission is not determinative of the criminal liability for violating BP 22. The gravamen of a BP 22 offense, which is malum prohibitum, is the act of issuing a worthless check. The law punishes this act to protect the stability and commercial value of checks as currency substitutes. The validity of the underlying transaction or the existence of consideration is irrelevant to the prosecution of the crime. Therefore, even if the construction agreement were declared void, Janiola's liability for issuing bouncing checks would remain.

• Prejudicial Question — This doctrine holds that a criminal action may be suspended if there is a pending civil action, the resolution of which is logically antecedent to the determination of guilt or innocence in the criminal case. The Court applied the two elements under Section 7, Rule 111: (1) the civil action must be previously instituted, and (2) the resolution of an issue therein determines whether the criminal action may proceed. In this case, the Court found that neither element was satisfied.
• Statutory Construction (Change in Phraseology) — This principle dictates that a change in the wording of a statute by amendment indicates an intent to change its meaning. The Court applied this by concluding that the insertion of the words "previously instituted" and "subsequent" into Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure was a deliberate amendment to require that the civil action must precede the criminal action for a prejudicial question to exist.
• Statutory Construction (Harmonization of Laws) — This principle requires that seemingly conflicting laws on the same subject be construed and harmonized to form a complete and coherent system of jurisprudence. The Court used this to reconcile Article 36 of the Civil Code with Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, interpreting them as non-conflicting provisions governing different aspects of prejudicial questions.
• Malum Prohibitum — This refers to an act that is deemed a crime because it is prohibited by statute, regardless of whether it is inherently immoral or evil. The Court classified a violation of BP 22 as malum prohibitum, stressing that criminal liability attaches from the mere act of issuing a worthless check, and considerations such as the purpose of its issuance or the validity of the underlying contract are immaterial.

• Quote — "At any rate, we have held that what the law punishes is the mere act of issuing a bouncing check, not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. This is because the thrust of the law is to prohibit the making of worthless checks and putting them into circulation."

• Torres v. Garchitorena — Cited as the controlling precedent establishing that under the amended Rules of Court, a civil action must be instituted prior to the criminal action for a prejudicial question to exist.
• Sabandal v. Tongco — Referenced to illustrate that the belated filing of a civil case, years after criminal charges were instituted, is often a dilatory tactic and does not give rise to a valid prejudicial question.
• Mejia v. People — Cited to support the doctrine that the gravamen of a BP 22 offense is the issuance of a bad check, and the purpose or agreement surrounding its issuance is irrelevant to the prosecution.
• Lee v. Court of Appeals — Cited to reinforce the ruling that lack of consideration for the issuance of a check is immaterial in a prosecution for violation of BP 22, as the law punishes the mere act of putting a worthless check into circulation.

• Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure — This rule was central to the decision, as its text explicitly requires a "previously instituted civil action" for a prejudicial question to arise, which was the primary basis for the Court's procedural ruling.
• Article 36 of the Civil Code — This provision, which governs pre-judicial questions, was interpreted by the Court not to be in conflict with the Rules of Court but to refer to the timing of when a motion to suspend proceedings may be filed.
• Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) — The elements of the crime defined in this statute were analyzed to determine that the offense is malum prohibitum, making the outcome of the civil case for rescission irrelevant to the respondent's criminal liability.