DREAMWORK CONSTRUCTION, INC., petitioner, vs. CLEOFE S.

The MTC issued its Order granting the Motion to Suspend Proceedings.
JANIOLA and HON. ARTHUR A. FAMINI, respondents
ISSUE: Whether or not the criminal case for violation of BP 22 should be
FACTS: Petitioner, through its President, Roberto S. Concepcion, and Vice- suspended based on the prejudicial question in the civil case for rescission
President for Finance and Marketing, Normandy P. Amora, filed a
Complaint Affidavit for violation of BP 22 against private respondent HELD: NO. SEC.
Cleofe S. Janiola with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Las Pias City.
7. Elements of prejudicial question. The elements of a prejudicial
Correspondingly, petitioner filed a criminal information for violation of BP
question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue
22 against private respondent with the entitled People of the Philippines v.
similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal
Cleofe S. Janiola.
action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the
Private respondent, joined by her husband, instituted a civil complaint criminal action may proceed.
against petitioner by filing a Complaint for the rescission of an alleged
In the instant case, the phrase, "previously instituted", was inserted to
construction agreement between the parties, as well as for damages.
qualify the nature of the civil action involved in a prejudicial question in
Notably, the checks, subject of the criminal cases before the MTC, were
relation to the criminal action. This interpretation is further buttressed by
issued in consideration of the construction agreement.
the insertion of "subsequent" directly before the term criminal action.
Thereafter private respondent filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings in There is no other logical explanation for the amendments except to qualify
Criminal Case Nos. 55554-61, alleging that the civil and criminal cases the relationship of the civil and criminal actions, that the civil action must
involved facts and issues similar or intimately related such that in the precede the criminal action.
resolution of the issues in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the
Here, the civil case was filed two (2) years after the institution of the
accused would necessarily be determined. In other words, private
criminal complaint and from the time that private respondent allegedly
respondent claimed that the civil case posed a prejudicial question as
withdrew its equipment from the job site. Also, it is worth noting that the
against the criminal cases.
civil case was instituted more than two and a half (2 1/2) years from the
Petitioner opposed on the grounds that: (1) there is no prejudicial question time that private respondent allegedly stopped construction of the
in this case as the rescission of the contract upon which the bouncing proposed building for no valid reason. More importantly, the civil case
checks were issued is a separate and distinct issue from the issue of praying for the rescission of the construction agreement for lack of
whether private respondent violated BP 22; and (2) Section 7, Rule 111 of consideration was filed more than three (3) years from the execution of the
the Rules of Court states that one of the elements of a prejudicial question construction agreement.
is that "the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or
Evidently, the circumstances surrounding the filing of the cases involved
intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action";
here show that the filing of the civil action was a mere afterthought on the
thus, this element is missing in this case, the criminal case having
part of private respondent and interposed for delay. And as correctly
preceded the civil case.
argued by petitioner, it is this scenario that Sec. 7 of Rule 111 of the Rules
of Court seeks to prevent. Thus, private respondent's positions cannot be
left to stand.

In any event, even if the civil case here was instituted prior to the criminal
action, there is, still, no prejudicial question to speak of that would justify
the suspension of the proceedings in the criminal case.

Undeniably, the fact that there exists a valid contract or agreement to

support the issuance of the check/s or that the checks were issued for
valuable consideration does not make up the elements of the crime. Thus,
this Court has held in a long line of cases 21 that the agreement
surrounding the issuance of dishonored checks is irrelevant to the
prosecution for violation of BP 22. Therefore, it is clear that the second
element required for the existence of a prejudicial question, that the
resolution of the issue in the civil action would determine whether the
criminal action may proceed, is absent in the instant case. Thus, no
prejudicial question exists and the rules on it are inapplicable to the case
before us.
VICTORIA S. JARILLO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, nullity of her first marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity,
respondent. while it retroacts to the date of the celebration of the marriage insofar as
the vinculum between the spouses is concerned, the said marriage is not
FACTS: Petitioner was charged with Bigamy before the RTC of Pasay City. without legal consequences, among which is incurring criminal liability for
Victoria Jarillo and Rafael Alocillo were married in a civil wedding bigamy".
ceremony solemnized by Hon. Monico C. Tanyag, then Municipal Mayor of
Taguig, Rizal. Victoria Jarillo and Rafael Alocillo again celebrated marriage ISSUE: W/N there should be a suspension of the proceedings on the
in a church wedding ceremony before Rev. Angel Resultay in San Carlos ground of the pendency of the petition for declaration of nullity of
City, Pangasinan. Appellant Victoria Jarillo thereafter contracted a petitioner's marriages to Alocillo, which, petitioner claimed involved a
subsequent marriage with Emmanuel Ebora Santos Uy, at the City Court of prejudicial question
Pasay City, Branch 1, before then Hon. Judge Nicanor Cruz. Appellant and HELD:
Emmanuel Uy exchanged marital vows anew in a church wedding in The foregoing ruling had been reiterated in Abunado v. People, where it
Manila. Emmanuel Uy filed against the appellant Civil Case for annulment was held thus:
of marriage before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
The subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage was
For her defense, petitioner insisted that
immaterial because prior to the declaration of nullity, the crime had
(1) her 1974 and 1975 marriages to Alocillo were null and void because
already been consummated. Moreover, petitioner's assertion would only
Alocillo was allegedly still married to a certain Loretta Tillman at the time
delay the prosecution of bigamy cases considering that an accused could
of the celebration of their marriage; (2) her marriages to both Alocillo and
simply file a petition to declare his previous marriage void and invoke the
Uy were null and void for lack of a valid marriage license; and (3) the
pendency of that action as a prejudicial question in the criminal case. We
action had prescribed, since Uy knew about her marriage to Alocillo as far
cannot allow that.
back as 1978.
The outcome of the civil case for annulment of petitioner's marriage to
The CA held that petitioner committed bigamy when she contracted
[private complainant] had no bearing upon the determination of
marriage with Emmanuel Santos Uy because, at that time, her marriage to
petitioner's innocence or guilt in the criminal case for bigamy, because all
Rafael Alocillo had not yet been declared null and void by the court. This
that is required for the charge of bigamy to prosper is that the first
being so, the presumption is, her previous marriage to Alocillo was still
marriage be subsisting at the time the second marriage is contracted.
existing at the time of her marriage to Uy.
Thus, under the law, a marriage, even one which is void or voidable, shall
In the meantime, the RTC of Makati City, Branch 140, rendered a Decision
be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding. In this
declaring petitioner's 1974 and 1975 marriages to Alocillo null and void ab
case, even if petitioner eventually obtained a declaration that his first
initio on the ground of Alocillo's psychological incapacity. In her motion
marriage was void ab initio, the point is, both the first and the second
for reconsideration, petitioner invoked said declaration of nullity as a
marriage were subsisting before the first marriage was annulled.
ground for the reversal of her conviction. However, in its Resolution the
CA, denied reconsideration and ruled that "[t]he subsequent declaration of
For the very same reasons elucidated in the above-quoted cases,
petitioner's conviction of the crime of bigamy must be affirmed. The
subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of petitioner's two marriages to
Alocillo cannot be considered a valid defense in the crime of bigamy. The
moment petitioner contracted a second marriage without the previous one
having been judicially declared null and void, the crime of bigamy was
already consummated because at the time of the celebration of the second
marriage, petitioner's marriage to Alocillo, which had not yet been
declared null and void by a court of competent jurisdiction, was deemed
valid and subsisting. Neither would a judicial declaration of the nullity of
petitioner's marriage to Uy make any difference. As held in Tenebro,
"[s]ince a marriage contracted during the subsistence of a valid marriage is
automatically void, the nullity of this second marriage is not per se an
argument for the avoidance of criminal liability for bigamy. . . . A plain
reading of [Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code], therefore, would
indicate that the provision penalizes the mere act of contracting a second
or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage".