G.R. No. 159186 ; June 5, 2009
JESSE Y. YAP, Petitioner, vs. HON. MONICO G. CABALES, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, General Santos City; MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, Branch 1, General Santos City; COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, JOVITA DIMALANTA and MERGYL MIRABUENO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jesse Y. Yap issued several postdated checks to Evelyn Te as payment for purchased real properties. These checks were subsequently rediscounted by respondents Spouses Mirabueno and Spouses Dimalanta. Upon presentment, the checks were dishonored for the reason “Account is Closed.” The respondents made demands, but petitioner failed to pay. Consequently, the respondents filed separate civil actions for collection of sum of money against the petitioner. Subsequently, several criminal informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22) were filed against the petitioner based on the same dishonored checks.
Petitioner filed motions in the criminal cases to suspend proceedings, arguing that the pending civil cases posed a prejudicial question. He contended that if the civil courts ruled there was no valid consideration for the checks, his criminal liability would be negated. The Municipal Trial Court denied his motions. The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the denial, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the pendency of the civil collection cases constitutes a prejudicial question warranting the suspension of the criminal proceedings for violation of B.P. 22.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the rulings of the lower courts. A prejudicial question exists when a civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to an issue in a subsequent criminal action, and the resolution of such issue determines whether the criminal action may proceed. For a prejudicial question to suspend a criminal case, two elements must concur: (1) the civil action involves an issue prior to and separate from the criminal case, and (2) the resolution of that issue determines whether the criminal action may proceed.
The Court held these elements were not satisfied. The civil cases were for collection based on the respondents’ rediscounting of the checks—a transaction separate from the original sale between petitioner and Te. The core issue in the civil cases was whether the respondents, as holders of the dishonored checks, were entitled to collect from the petitioner. In contrast, a B.P. 22 violation is committed by the mere act of issuing a check that is subsequently dishonored for insufficiency of funds or credit, or because the account is closed. The law punishes the issuance of a bouncing check as a public nuisance, irrespective of the purpose or consideration involved. Therefore, the resolution of the civil cases on the enforceability of the debt would not determine the petitioner’s criminal liability for issuing valueless checks. The lack of consideration is merely a defense to be raised and proven during the criminal trial, not a logical antecedent that must be resolved first in a separate civil action.