Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

JESSE Y. YAP vs HON. MONICO G.

CABALES
G.R. No. 159186
Facts: Petitioner Jesse Y. Yap and his spouse Bessie Yap are engaged in the real
estate business through their company Primetown Property Group. Yap purchased
several real properties from a certain Evelyn Te. Inconsideration of said purchases,
petitioner issued several BPI postdated checks to Evelyn. Thereafter, spouses
Orlando and Mergyl Mirabueno and spouses Charlie and Jovita Dimalanta,
rediscounted the checks from Evelyn. Some of the checks were dishonor by reason
of account closed. Despite of the demand, Yap failed to pay the amounts
represented by the said checks. Spouses Mirabueno filed a civila ction for collection
of sum of money against Yap. Subsequently, the Office of the City Prosecutor of
General Santos City filed several informations for violation of BP 22 against the
petitioner. In the criminal cases, Yap filed separate motions to suspend proceedings
on account of the existence of a prejudicial question. The MCTC denied the motions
for lack of merit. On appeal, the RTC likewise denied the petition. CA rendered a
Decision dismissing the petition for lack of merit. The CA opined that Civil Case Nos.
6231 and 6238 did not pose a prejudicial question to the prosecution of the
petitioner for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not there exists a prejudicial question that necessitates the
suspension of the proceedings in the MTCC.
HELD: None. A prejudicial question generally exists in a situation where a civil action
and a criminal action are both pending, and there exists in the former an issue that
must be preemptively resolved before the latter may proceed, because howsoever
the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure
of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. The rationale behind
the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting decisions. It has two
essential elements: (i) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related
to the issue raised in the criminal action; and (ii) the resolution of such issue
determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. If both civil and
criminal cases have similar issues, or the issue in one is intimately related to the
issues raised in the other, then a prejudicial question would likely exist, provided the
other element or characteristic is satisfied. It must appear not only that the civil
case involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution would be based,
but also that the resolution of the issues raised in the civil action would be
necessarily determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused. If the resolution
of the issue in the civil action will not determine the criminal responsibility of the
accused in the criminal action based on the same facts, or if there is no necessity
that the civil case be determined first before taking up the criminal case, the civil
case does not involve a prejudicial question. Neither is there a prejudicial question if
the civil and the criminal action can, according to law, proceed independently of
each other.