Teodoro A. Reyes vs.

Ettore Rossi
G.R. No. 159823. February 18, 2013. Contract; rescission under Article 1191; reco ni!es an i"#lied resolutory condition in reci#rocal obli ations; e$$ects t%ereo$. Facts& 'n 'ctober 31, 199(, #etitioner )eodoro A. Reyes *Reyes+ and Ad,anced Foundation Construction -yste"s Cor#oration *Ad,anced Foundation+, re#resented.by its /0ecuti,e 1ro2ect 3irector, res#ondent /ttore Rossi *Rossi+, e0ecuted a deed o$ conditional sale in,ol,in t%e #urc%ase by Reyes o$ e4ui#"ent consistin o$ a 5ar"an 3red in 1u". )%e #arties a reed t%erein t%at Reyes 6ould #ay t%e su" o$ "oney as do6n#ay"ent, and t%e balance t%rou % $our #ost7dated c%ec8s. Reyes co"#lied, but in 9anuary 1998, %e re4uested t%e restructurin o $ %is obli ation under t%e deed o$ conditional sale by re#lacin t%e $our #ost7dated c%ec8s 6it% nine #ost7dated c%ec8s t%at 6ould include interest. Ad,anced Foundation assented to Reyes: re4uest, and returned t%e $our c%ec8s. ;n turn, Reyes issued and deli,ered t%e $ollo6in nine #ost7 dated c%ec8s dra6n a ainst t%e <nited Coconut 1lanters =an8. Rossi de#osited t%ree o$ t%e #ost7dated c%ec8s on t%eir "aturity dates in Ad,anced Foundation:s ban8 account at t%e 1C; =an8 in >a8ati. )6o o$ t%e c%ec8s 6ere denied #ay"ent ostensibly u#on Reyes: instructions to sto# t%eir #ay"ent, 6%ile t%e t%ird 6as dis%onored $or insu$$iciency o$ $unds. Rossi li8e6ise de#osited t6o "ore c%ec8s in Ad,anced Foundation:s account at t%e 1C; =an8 in >a8ati, but t%e c%ec8s 6ere returned 6it% t%e notation Account Closed sta"#ed on t%e". ?e did not any"ore de#osit t%e t%ree re"ainin c%ec8s on t%e assu"#tion t%at t%ey 6ould be si"ilarly dis%onored. 'n 9uly 29, 1998, Reyes co""enced an action $or rescission o$ contract and da"a es in t%e Re ional )rial Court in @ue!on City. ?is co"#laint sou %t 2ud "ent declarin t%e deed o$ conditional sale Arescinded and o$ no $urt%er $orce and e$$ect,B and orderin Ad,anced Foundation to return t%e do6n#ay"ent 6it% le al interest $ro" 9une C, 1998 until $ully #aid; and to #ay to %i" attorney:s $ees, and ,arious 8inds and a"ounts o$ da"a es. 'n -e#te"ber 8, 1998, Rossi c%ar ed Reyes 6it% $i,e counts o$ esta$a and $i,e counts o$ ,iolation o$ =atas 1a"bansa =l . 22 in t%e '$$ice o$ t%e City 1rosecutor o$ >a8ati $or t%e dis%onor o$ C%ec8s.

Ratio& )%e action $or t%e rescission o$ t%e deed o$ sale on t%e round t%at Ad,anced Foundation did not co"#ly 6it% its obli ation actually see8s one o$ t%e alternati,e re"edies a,ailable to a contractin #arty under Article 1191 o$ t%e Ci,il Code, to 6it& Article 1191. )%e #o6er to rescind obli ations is i"#lied in reci#rocal ones, in case one o$ t%e obli ors s%ould not co"#ly 6it% 6%at is incu"bent u#on %i".

)%e in2ured #arty "ay c%oose bet6een t%e $ul$ill"ent and t%e rescission o$ t%e obli ation, 6it% t%e #ay"ent o$ da"a es in eit%er case. ?e "ay also see8 rescission, e,en a$ter %e %as c%osen $ul$ill"ent, i$ t%e latter s%ould beco"e i"#ossible. )%e court s%all decree t%e rescission clai"ed, unless t%ere be 2ust cause aut%ori!in t%e $i0in o$ a #eriod. )%is is understood to be 6it%out #re2udice to t%e ri %ts o$ t%ird #ersons 6%o %a,e ac4uired t%e t%in , in accordance 6it% Articles 1385 and 1388 and t%e >ort a e Da6. Article 1191 o$ t%e Ci,il Code reco ni!es an i"#lied or tacit resolutory condition in reci#rocal obli ations. )%e condition is i"#osed by la6, and a##lies e,en i$ t%ere is no corres#ondin a ree"ent t%ereon bet6een t%e #arties. )%e e0#lanation $or t%is is t%at in reci#rocal obli ations a #arty incurs in delay once t%e ot%er #arty %as #er$or"ed %is #art o$ t%e contract; %ence, t%e #arty 6%o %as #er$or"ed or is ready and 6illin to #er$or" "ay rescind t%e obli ation i$ t%e ot%er does not #er$or", or is not ready and 6illin to #er$or". ;t is true t%at t%e rescission o$ a contract results in t%e e0tin uis%"ent o$ t%e obli atory relation as i$ it 6as ne,er created, t%e e0tin uis%"ent %a,in a retroacti,e e$$ect. )%e rescission is e4ui,alent to in,alidatin and un"a8in t%e 2uridical tie, lea,in t%in s in t%eir status be$ore t%e celebration o$ t%e contract. ?o6e,er, until t%e contract is rescinded, t%e 2uridical tie and t%e conco"itant obli ations subsist.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 159823 February 18, 2013

TEODORO A. RE ES, Petitioner, vs.ETTORE ROSS!, Respondent. D "ERSAM!N, J.: The rescission of a contract of sale is not a pre"udicial #uestion that $ill $arrant the suspension of the cri%inal proceedin&s !ISION

co%%enced to prosecute the bu'er for violations of the (ouncin& !hec)s *a$ (Batas Pambansa Blg. ++, arisin& fro% the dishonor of the chec)s the bu'er issued in connection $ith the sale. A#$e%e&e#$' On October -., .//0, petitioner Teodoro 1. Re'es 2Re'es, and 1dvanced Foundation !onstruction S'ste%s !orporation 21dvanced Foundation,, represented b' its 3ecutive Pro"ect Director, respondent ttore Rossi 2Rossi,, e3ecuted a deed of conditional sale involvin& the purchase b' Re'es of e#uip%ent consistin& of a 4ar%an Dred&in& Pu%p 56 -771 $orth P.7,777,777.77. The parties a&reed therein that Re'es $ould pa' the su% of P-,777,777.77 as do$npa'%ent, and the balance of P0,777,777.77 throu&h four post8dated chec)s. Re'es co%plied, but in 9anuar' .//:, he re#uested the restructurin& of his obli&ation under the deed of conditional sale b' replacin& the four post8dated chec)s $ith nine post8dated chec)s that $ould include interest at the rate of P+;,777.77<%onth accruin& on the unpaid portion of the obli&ation on 1pril -7, .//:, 9une -7, .//:, 9ul' -., .//:, Septe%ber -7, .//: and October -., .//:. . 1dvanced Foundation assented to Re'es= re#uest, and returned the four chec)s. In turn, Re'es issued and delivered the follo$in& nine postdated chec)s in the a&&re&ate su% of P0,.+;,777.77 dra$n a&ainst the >nited !oconut Planters (an), + to $it? !hec) No. 0+:70 0/.+; 0+:7+ 0+:7: 0+:7/ 0+:7. Date 1pril -7, .//: Ma' ., .//: Ma' -7, .//: 9une -7, .//: 9ul' -., .//: 1u&ust -., .//: 1%ount P +;,777.77 .,777,777. 77 +,777,777. 77 +;,777.77 +;,777.77 +,777,777. 77

0+:.7 0+:.. 0+/7-

Septe%ber -7, .//: October -., .//: Nove%ber -7, .//:

+;,777.77 +;,777.77 +,777,777. 77

Rossi deposited three of the post8dated chec)s 2 i.e., No. 0+:70, No. 0/.+; and No. 0+:7:, on their %aturit' dates in 1dvanced Foundation=s ban) account at the P!I (an) in Ma)ati. T$o of the chec)s $ere denied pa'%ent ostensibl' upon Re'es= instructions to stop their pa'%ent, $hile the third 2 i.e., No. 0+:7+, $as dishonored for insufficienc' of funds.Rossi li)e$ise deposited t$o %ore chec)s 2 i.e., No. 0+:7/ and No. 0+:7., in 1dvanced Foundation=s account at the P!I (an) in Ma)ati, but the chec)s $ere returned $ith the notation Account Closed sta%ped on the%. 5e did not an'%ore deposit the three re%ainin& chec)s on the assu%ption that the' $ould be si%ilarl' dishonored.@ In the %ean$hile, on 9ul' +/, .//:, Re'es co%%enced an action for rescission of contract and da%a&es in the Re&ional Trial !ourt in AueBon !it' 2RT!,. 5is co%plaint, doc)eted as !ivil !ase No. A/:8-;.7/ and entitled Teodoro A. Reyes v. Advanced Foundation Construction Systems Corporation , sou&ht "ud&%ent declarin& the deed of conditional sale Crescinded and of no further force and effect,C and orderin& 1dvanced Foundation to return the P-,777,777.77 do$npa'%ent $ith le&al interest fro% 9une @, .//: until full' paidD and to pa' to hi% attorne'=s fees, and various )inds and a%ounts of da%a&es.; On Septe%ber :, .//:, Rossi char&ed Re'es $ith five counts of estafa and five counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. ++ in the Office of the !it' Prosecutor of Ma)ati for the dishonor of !hec)s No. 0+:70, No. 0+:7:, No. 0+:7., No. 0+:7/ and No. 0/.+;. 1nother cri%inal char&e for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. ++ $as lod&ed a&ainst Re'es in the Office of the !it' Prosecutor of AueBon !it' for the dishonor of !hec) No. 0+:7+. E On Septe%ber +/, .//:, Re'es sub%itted his counter8affidavit in the Office of the !it' Prosecutor of Ma)ati, 0 clai%in& that the chec)s had not been issued for an' valuable considerationD that he had discovered fro% the start of usin& the dred&in& pu%p involved

in the conditional sale that the !aterpillar diesel en&ine po$erin& the pu%p had been rated at onl' ;E7 horsepo$er instead of the .+77 horsepo$er 1dvanced Foundation had represented to hi%D that $eldin& $or)s on the pu%p had neatl' concealed several crac)sD that on Ma' E, .//: he had $ritten to 1dvanced Foundation co%plainin& about the %isrepresentations on the specifications of the pu%p and de%andin& docu%entar' proof of 1dvanced Foundation=s o$nership of the pu%pD that he had caused the order to stop the pa'%ent of three chec)s 2 i.e., No. 0+:7E, No. 0+:70 and No. 0/.+;,D that 1dvanced Foundation had replied to his letter on Ma' :, .//: b' sa'in& that the pu%p had been sold to hi% on an as is, !ere is basisD that he had then sent another letter to 1dvanced Foundation on Ma' .:, .//: to reiterate his co%plaints and the re#uest for proper docu%entation of o$nershipD that he had subse#uentl' discovered other hidden defects, pro%ptin& hi% to $rite another letterD and that instead of attendin& to his co%plaints and re#uest, 1dvanced Foundation=s la$'ers had threatened hi% $ith le&al action. 1t the sa%e ti%e, Re'es assailed the "urisdiction of the Office of the !it' Prosecutor of Ma)ati over the cri%inal char&es a&ainst hi% on the &round that he had issued the chec)s in AueBon !it'D as $ell as ar&ued that the Office of the !it' Prosecutor of Ma)ati should suspend the proceedin&s because of the pendenc' in the RT! of the civil action for rescission of contract that posed a pre"udicial #uestion as to the cri%inal proceedin&s. : On Nove%ber +7, .//:, the 1ssistant !it' Prosecutor handlin& the preli%inar' investi&ation reco%%ended the dis%issal of the char&es of estafa and the suspension of the proceedin&s relatin& to the violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. ++ based on a pre"udicial #uestion./ On 9anuar' ;, .///, the !it' Prosecutor of Ma)ati approved the reco%%endation of the handlin& 1ssistant !it' Prosecutor, .7 statin&? 45 R FOR , pre%ises considered, the co%plaint for stafa is respectfull' reco%%ended to be dis%issed, as upon approval, it is hereb' dis%issed. Further, it is respectfull' reco%%ended that the proceedin&s in the char&e for Violation of (atas Pa%bansa (ilan& ++ a&ainst the respondent be suspended until the pre"udicial #uestion raised in

!ivil !ase A8/:8-;.7/ for Rescission of !ontract and Da%a&es $hich is no$ pendin& $ith the RT! of AueBon !it', (ranch ++@, has been dul' resolved. Rossi appealed the resolution of the !it' Prosecutor to the Depart%ent of 9ustice, but the Secretar' of 9ustice, b' resolution of 9ul' +@, +77., denied Rossi=s petition for revie$. 1fter the denial of his %otion for reconsideration on 1pril +/, +77+, Rossi challen&ed the resolutions of the Secretar' of 9ustice b' petition for certiorari in the !1. Ru()#* o+ $,e CA In the petition for certiorari, Rossi insisted that the Secretar' of 9ustice had co%%itted &rave abuse of discretion a%ountin& to lac) or e3cess of "urisdiction in upholdin& the suspension of the cri%inal proceedin&s b' the !it' Prosecutor of Ma)ati on account of the e3istence of a pre"udicial #uestion, and in sustainin& the dis%issal of the co%plaints for estafa. On Ma' -7, +77-, the !1 pro%ul&ated its assailed decision, .. to $it? -.EREFORE, the fore&oin& considered, the assailed resolution is hereb' MOD!F!ED and the instant petition is GRANTED in so far as the issue of the e3istence of pre"udicial #uestion is concerned. 1ccordin&l', the order suspendin& the preli%inar' investi&ation in I.S. No. /:8@77+@8+/ is RE/ERSED and SET AS!DE, and the dis%issal of the co%plaint for estafa is AFF!RMED. SO ORDERED. !''ue' 5ence, this appeal b' Re'es. Re'es asserts that the !1 erred in rulin& that there $as no pre"udicial #uestion that $arranted the suspension of the cri%inal proceedin&s a&ainst hi%D that the petition suffered fatal defects that %erited its i%%ediate dis%issalD that the !1 $as $ron& in rel'in& on the pronounce%ents in Balgos, "r. v. Sandiganbayan.+ and #mali v. $ntermediate Appellate Court.- because the factual bac)&rounds thereat $ere not si%ilar to that obtainin& hereD and

that the Secretar' of 9ustice did not co%%it an' &rave abuse of discretion a%ountin& to lac) or e3cess of "urisdiction. In his co%%ent,.@ Rossi counters that the petition for revie$ should be outri&htl' dis%issed because of its fatal defectD that the !1 did not err in rulin& that the action for rescission of contract did not pose a pre"udicial #uestion that $ould suspend the cri%inal proceedin&s. Re'es sub%itted a repl', .; declarin& that the defect in the affidavit of service attached to his petition for revie$ had been due to oversi&htD that he had substantiall' co%plied $ith the rulesD that there e3isted a pre"udicial #uestion that could affect the e3tent of his liabilit' in li&ht of Supre%e !ourt 1d%inistrative !ircular No. .+8+777D and that the !1 erred in findin& that the Secretar' of 9ustice co%%itted &rave abuse of discretion. To be resolved is $hether or not the civil action for rescission of the contract of sale raised a pre"udicial #uestion that re#uired the suspension of the cri%inal prosecution for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. ++. Ru()#* The petition for revie$ is $ithout %erit. 1 pre"udicial #uestion &enerall' co%es into pla' in a situation $here a civil action and a cri%inal action are both pendin&, and there e3ists in the for%er an issue that %ust first be deter%ined before the latter %a' proceed, because ho$soever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved $ould be deter%inative %uris et de %ure of the &uilt or innocence of the accused in the cri%inal case..E The rationale for the suspension on the &round of a pre"udicial #uestion is to avoid conflictin& decisions. .0 T$o ele%ents that %ust concur in order for a civil case to be considered a pre"udicial #uestion are e3pressl' stated in Section 0, Rule ... of the +777 Rules of Criminal Procedure, to $it? Section 0. &lements of pre%udicial 'uestion. F The ele%ents of a pre"udicial #uestion are? 2a, the previousl' instituted civil action involves an issue si%ilar or inti%atel' related to the issue raised in the subse#uent cri%inal action, and 2b, the resolution of such issue deter%ines $hether or not the cri%inal action %a' proceed.

In Sabandal v. Tongco,.: the concept of pre"udicial #uestion is e3plained in this $ise? For a civil action to be considered pre"udicial to a cri%inal case as to cause the suspension of the cri%inal proceedin&s until the final resolution of the civil, the follo$in& re#uisites %ust be present? 2., the civil case involves facts inti%atel' related to those upon $hich the cri%inal prosecution $ould be basedD 2+, in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil action, the &uilt or innocence of the accused $ould necessaril' be deter%inedD and 2-, "urisdiction to tr' said #uestion %ust be lod&ed in another tribunal. If both civil and cri%inal cases have si%ilar issues or the issue in one is inti%atel' related to the issues raised in the other, then a pre"udicial #uestion $ould li)el' e3ist, provided the other ele%ent or characteristic is satisfied. It %ust appear not onl' that the civil case involves the sa%e facts upon $hich the cri%inal prosecution $ould be based, but also that the resolution of the issues raised in the civil action $ould be necessaril' deter%inative of the &uilt or innocence of the accused. If the resolution of the issue in the civil action $ill not deter%ine the cri%inal responsibilit' of the accused in the cri%inal action based on the sa%e facts, or there is no necessit' Cthat the civil case be deter%ined first before ta)in& up the cri%inal case,C therefore, the civil case does not involve a pre"udicial #uestion. Neither is there a pre"udicial #uestion if the civil and the cri%inal action can, accordin& to la$, proceed independentl' of each other. !ontendin& that the rescission of the contract of sale constitutes a pre"udicial #uestion, Re'es posits that the resolution of the civil action $ill be deter%inative of $hether or not he $as cri%inall' liable for the violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. ++. 5e states that if the contract $ould be rescinded, his obli&ation to pa' under the conditional deed of sale $ould be e3tin&uished, and such outco%e $ould necessaril' result in the dis%issal of the cri%inal proceedin&s for the violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. ++. The action for the rescission of the deed of sale on the &round that 1dvanced Foundation did not co%pl' $ith its obli&ation actuall' see)s one of the alternative re%edies available to a contractin& part' under 1rticle ../. of the Civil Code, to $it? 1rticle ../.. The po$er to rescind obli&ations is i%plied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obli&ors should not co%pl' $ith

$hat is incu%bent upon hi%. The in"ured part' %a' choose bet$een the fulfil%ent and the rescission of the obli&ation, $ith the pa'%ent of da%a&es in either case. 5e %a' also see) rescission, even after he has chosen fulfil%ent, if the latter should beco%e i%possible. The court shall decree the rescission clai%ed, unless there be "ust cause authoriBin& the fi3in& of a period. This is understood to be $ithout pre"udice to the ri&hts of third persons $ho have ac#uired the thin&, in accordance $ith 1rticles .-:; and .-:: and the Mort&a&e *a$. 1rticle ../. of the Civil Code reco&niBes an i%plied or tacit resolutor' condition in reciprocal obli&ations. The condition is i%posed b' la$, and applies even if there is no correspondin& a&ree%ent thereon bet$een the parties. The e3planation for this is that in reciprocal obli&ations a part' incurs in dela' once the other part' has perfor%ed his part of the contractD hence, the part' $ho has perfor%ed or is read' and $illin& to perfor% %a' rescind the obli&ation if the other does not perfor%, or is not read' and $illin& to perfor%../ It is true that the rescission of a contract results in the e3tin&uish%ent of the obli&ator' relation as if it $as never created, the e3tin&uish%ent havin& a retroactive effect. The rescission is e#uivalent to invalidatin& and un%a)in& the "uridical tie, leavin& thin&s in their status before the celebration of the contract. +7 5o$ever, until the contract is rescinded, the "uridical tie and the conco%itant obli&ations subsist. To properl' appreciate if there is a pre"udicial #uestion to $arrant the suspension of the cri%inal actions, reference is %ade to the ele%ents of the cri%es char&ed. The violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. ++ re#uires the concurrence of the follo$in& ele%ents, na%el'? 2., the %a)in&, dra$in&, and issuance of an' chec) to appl' for account or for valueD 2+, the )no$led&e of the %a)er, dra$er, or issuer that at the ti%e of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit $ith the dra$ee ban) for the pa'%ent of the chec) in full upon its present%entD and 2-, the subse#uent dishonor of the chec) b' the dra$ee ban) for insufficienc' of funds or credit or dishonor for the sa%e reason had not the dra$er, $ithout an' valid cause, ordered the ban) to stop pa'%ent. +. The

issue in the cri%inal actions upon the violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. ++ is, therefore, $hether or not Re'es issued the dishonoured chec)s )no$in& the% to be $ithout funds upon present%ent. On the other hand, the issue in the civil action for rescission is $hether or not the breach in the fulfil%ent of 1dvanced Foundation=s obli&ation $arranted the rescission of the conditional sale. If, after trial on the %erits in the civil action, 1dvanced Foundation $ould be found to have co%%itted %aterial breach as to $arrant the rescission of the contract, such result $ould not necessaril' %ean that Re'es $ould be absolved of the cri%inal responsibilit' for issuin& the dishonored chec)s because, as the afore%entioned ele%ents sho$, he alread' co%%itted the violations upon the dishonor of the chec)s that he had issued at a ti%e $hen the conditional sale $as still full' bindin& upon the parties. 5is obli&ation to fund the chec)s or to %a)e arran&e%ents for the% $ith the dra$ee ban) should not be tied up to the future event of e3tin&uish%ent of the obli&ation under the contract of sale throu&h rescission. Indeed, under Batas Pambansa Blg. ++, the %ere issuance of a $orthless chec) $as alread' the offense in itself. >nder such circu%stances, the cri%inal proceedin&s for the violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. ++ could proceed despite the pendenc' of the civil action for rescission of the conditional sale. 1ccordin&l', $e a&ree $ith the holdin& of the !1 that the civil action for the rescission of contract $as not deter%inative of the &uilt or innocence of Re'es. 4e consider the e3position b' the !1 of its reasons to be appropriate enou&h, to $it? 3333 4e find %erit in the petition. 1 careful perusal of the co%plaint for rescission of contract and da%a&es reveals that the causes of action advanced b' respondent Re'es are the alle&ed %isrepresentation co%%itted b' the petitioner and 1F!S! and their alle&ed failure to co%pl' $ith his de%and for proofs of o$nership. On one hand, he posits that his consent to the contract $as vitiated b' the fraudulent act of the co%pan' in %isrepresentin& the condition and #ualit' of the dred&in& pu%p. 1lternativel', he clai%s that the co%pan' co%%itted a breach of contract $hich is a &round for the rescission thereof. ither $a', he in effect ad%its the validit' and the bindin& effect of the deed pendin& an' ad"udication $hich nullifies the

sa%e. Indeed, under the 9a$ on contracts, vitiated consent does not %a)e a contract unenforceable but %erel' voidable, the re%ed' of $hich $ould be to annul the contract since voidable contracts produce le&al effects until the' are annulled. On the other hand, rescission of contracts in case of breach pursuant to 1rticle ../. of the !ivil !ode of the Philippines also presupposes a valid contract unless rescinded or annulled. 1s defined, a pre"udicial #uestion is one that arises in a case, the resolution of $hich is a lo&ical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the co&niBance of $hich pertains to another tribunal. The pre"udicial #uestion %ust be deter%inative of the case before the court but the "urisdiction to tr' and resolve the #uestion %ust be lod&ed in another court or tribunal. It is a #uestion based on a fact distinct and separate fro% the cri%e but so inti%atel' connected $ith it that it deter%ines the &uilt or innocence of the accused, and for it to suspend the cri%inal action, it %ust appear not onl' that said case involves facts inti%atel' related to those upon $hich the cri%inal prosecution $ould be based but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the &uilt or innocence of the accused $ould necessaril' be deter%ined. It co%es into pla' &enerall' in a situation $here a civil action and a cri%inal action are both pendin& and there e3ists in the for%er an issue $hich %ust be pree%ptivel' resolved before the cri%inal action %a' proceed, because ho$soever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved $ould be deter%inative %uris et de %ure of the &uilt or innocence of the accused in the cri%inal case. In this li&ht, it is clear that the pendenc' of the civil case does not bar the continuation of the proceedin&s in the preli%inar' investi&ation on the &round that it poses a pre"udicial #uestion. !onsiderin& that the contracts are dee%ed to be valid until rescinded, the consideration and obli&ator' effect thereof are also dee%ed to have been validl' %ade, thus de%andable. !onse#uentl', there $as no failure of consideration at the ti%e $hen the sub"ect chec)s $ere dishonored. 2 %phasis supplied, 3333 45 R FOR , the !ourt D NI S the petition for revie$D

1FFIRMS the decision the !ourt of 1ppeals pro%ul&ated on Ma' -7, +77-D and DIR !TS the petitioner to pa' the costs of suit. SO ORD R D. 0UCAS P. "ERSAM!N1ssociate 9ustice 4 !ON!>R? MAR!A 0OURDES P. A. SERENO!hief 9ustice TERES!TA 1. 0EONARDO2DE CASTRO 1ssociate 9ustice "!EN/EN!DO 0. RE ES1ssociate 9ustice ! RTIFI!1TION

MART!N S. /!00AR 1ssociate 9u

Pursuant to Section .-, 1rticle VIII of the !onstitution, I certif' that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case $as assi&ned to the $riter of the opinion of the !ourtGs Division. MAR!A 0OURDES P. A. SERENO!hief 9ustice Foo$#o$e'
.

Rollo, p. +0. Id. at +:. Id. Id. Id. at -/8@-. Id. at +:. Id. at @:8;.. Id. at +/. Id. at ;+8;;.

.7

Id. at -7.

Id. at +E8-;D penned b' 1ssociate 9ustice 9osefina Huevara8 Salon&a 2retired,, and concurred in b' 1ssociate 9ustice Rodri&o V. !osico 2retired, and 1ssociate 9ustice d&ardo F. Sundia% 2retired<deceased,.
..

H.R. No. :;;/7, 1u&ust .7, ./:/, .0E S!R1 +:0 2Note, ho$ever, that this rulin& $as not %entioned in the decision of the !1,.
.+ .-

H.R. No. E-./:, 9une +., .//7, .:E S!R1 E:7. Rollo, pp. :.8::. Id. at /@8.77.

.@

.;

"ose v. Suare(, H.R. No. .0E0/;, 9une -7, +77:, ;;E S!R1 00-, 0:.D Carlos v. Court of Appeals, H.R. No. .7/::0D Februar' .7, .//0, +E: S!R1 +;, --D Tuanda v. Sandiganbayan (T!ird )ivision*, H.R. No. ..7;@@, October .0, .//; , +@/ S!R1 -@+, -;..
.E

Beltran v. People, H.R. No. .-0;E0, 9une +7, +777, --@ S!R1 .7E, ..7.
.0 .:

H.R. No. .+@@/:, October ;, +77., -EE S!R1 ;E0, ;0.8;0+.

@ Tolentino, Commentaries and "urisprudence on t!e Civil Code of t!e P!ilippines, ./:0 dition, p. .0;.
./ +7

Id. at .:7.

Tan v. +ende(, "r., H.R. No. .-:EE/, 9une E, +77+, -:- S!R1 +7+, +.7.
+.