GR 159823; (February, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 159823 ; February 18, 2013
TEODORO A. REYES, Petitioner, vs. ETTORE ROSSI, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Teodoro Reyes and respondent Ettore Rossi’s corporation executed a deed of conditional sale for equipment. Reyes paid a downpayment and issued post-dated checks for the balance, which were later restructured into nine checks. Several of these checks were dishonored upon presentment, either due to a stop-payment order or insufficiency of funds. Consequently, Rossi initiated criminal complaints for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) against Reyes.
Prior to the criminal complaints, Reyes had filed a civil action for rescission of contract and damages against the corporation, alleging misrepresentation and hidden defects regarding the equipment sold. In the preliminary investigation for the B.P. 22 cases, Reyes argued that the pendency of this civil action constituted a prejudicial question that should suspend the criminal proceedings. The City Prosecutor agreed and ordered the suspension. This was affirmed by the Secretary of Justice upon review.
ISSUE
Whether the pendency of a civil action for rescission of the contract of sale poses a prejudicial question that warrants the suspension of the criminal proceedings for violation of B.P. 22 arising from the dishonor of the checks issued for the purchase.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative, affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision to set aside the suspension. A prejudicial question exists when a civil action involves an issue intimately related to the criminal case, and the resolution of that issue determines the guilt or innocence of the accused. The Court held that the action for rescission does not meet this test.
The logic is that a contract is valid and binding until rescinded by a competent court. The checks were issued for a valid consideration—the obligation arising from the sale—which existed at the time of issuance and dishonor. The alleged defects and the claim for rescission pertain to the performance of the contract, not its existence. The dishonor of the checks constitutes an offense under B.P. 22 based on the fact of issuance and subsequent dishonor, independent of the outcome of the rescission case. The validity of the contract and the obligation to pay are presumed until annulled. Therefore, the resolution of the civil case is not determinative of Reyes’s criminal liability for issuing worthless checks. The criminal proceedings must proceed independently.