G.R. No. L-63198 June 21, 1990
VICENTE S. UMALI, BENJAMIN CALLEJA, JR., ALBERTO L. LEDESMA and EVANGELINE U. LEDESMA, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND SPOUSES HONORIO and SOLINA EDANO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, as officers of Orosea Development Corporation, purchased a parcel of land from the respondent Edano spouses. The purchase price was payable in installments via postdated checks. A deed of absolute sale was executed and title was transferred to Orosea, which then used the property to secure a bank loan. Subsequently, the checks issued for the second, third, and fourth installments were dishonored due to insufficient funds. Consequently, the Edano spouses filed a criminal complaint for estafa against the petitioners, docketed as Criminal Case No. 1423-I.
Before their arraignment in the criminal case, Orosea filed a civil action (Civil Case No. 8769) against the Edano spouses for the annulment or rescission of the deed of sale. The civil complaint alleged fraud, claiming the vendors misrepresented that the land was free from liens and tenancy, when it was allegedly covered by land reform and portions were timberland. Petitioners then filed a motion to suspend the criminal proceedings, arguing that the civil case posed a prejudicial question that must be resolved first.

ISSUE

Whether the pendency of Civil Case No. 8769 for annulment of the deed of sale constitutes a prejudicial question that warrants the suspension of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1423-I for estafa.

RULING

No, the civil case does not pose a prejudicial question. A prejudicial question exists when a civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue in a criminal case, and the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. For it to apply, the civil action must be instituted before the criminal prosecution, and the resolution of the issue in the civil case must be determinative of the accused’s guilt or innocence in the criminal case.
Here, the criminal case for estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code is based on the alleged issuance of worthless checks. The elements of the offense pertain to the knowledge of insufficiency of funds at the time of issuance and the subsequent dishonor of the checks. In contrast, the civil case for annulment is grounded on alleged fraud (misrepresentation) by the vendors regarding the condition of the property sold. The resolution of the civil case—whether the sale should be annulled due to the vendors’ fraud—has no bearing on the determination of the petitioners’ criminal liability for issuing checks without sufficient funds. The two issues are completely separate and distinct. The guilt or innocence of the petitioners in the estafa case does not depend on the validity or nullity of the contract of sale. Therefore, the criminal proceedings may proceed independently without awaiting the outcome of the civil case.