Docket No. : G.R. No.

184861, June 30, 2009

Petitioner: DREAMWORK CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

Respondent: CLEOFE S. JANIOLA and HON. ARTHUR A. FAMINI

Source: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_184861_2009.html

Subject: Statutory Construction

Syllabus/ Part VII: Construction of Conflicting Provisions

Topic: B. Rules on Resolving Statutes in Pari Materia
3. Earlier Law versus Later Law; Amendment and Repeal

Facts:

Ponente: Justice Velasco, Jr.

Jurisdiction: Supreme Court, Third Division

Facts:

Dreamwork Construction, Inc., represented by its President, Roberto S. Concepcion, and Normandy P.
Amora, filed a Complaint AFFIDAVIT on October 18, 2004, against Cleofe S. Janiola for violation of
Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22) due to bounced checks. This complaint was made with the Office
of the City Prosecutor of Las Piñas City

And later on February 2, 2005, Dreamwork filed a criminal information for violation of BP 22 against
Janiola with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 55554-61, titled
People of the Philippines v. Cleofe S. Janiola.

In response, Janiola, along with her husband, initiated a civil complaint against Dreamwork
Construction, Inc. on September 20, 2006, for the rescission of an alleged construction agreement
between them, as well as for damages.

This civil case, docketed as Civil Case No. LP-06-0197, was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 197 in Las Piñas City. Notably, the checks involved in the criminal cases were issued in
consideration of the construction agreement.

Subsequently, Janiola filed a motion to suspend the proceedings in the criminal cases , arguing
that the civil and criminal cases involved similar issues, thus posing a prejudicial question.

The MTC granted Janiola's motion to suspend proceedings and denied Dreamwork Construction, Inc.'s
motion for reconsideration.

Dreamwork Construction, Inc. appealed the MTC's decision to the RTC, which affirmed the decision.

Dissatisfied, Dreamwork Construction, Inc. filed a petition before the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether the court erred in not perceiving grave abuse of discretion on the part of the lower
court in suspending proceedings in the criminal case based on a prejudicial question.

Ruling: The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the decision of the RTC and the MTC, and
ordered the MTC to continue with the proceedings in the criminal case.

Ruling Basis:
● The court emphasized that for a prejudicial question to exist, the civil action must precede the
filing of the criminal action.
● The court interpreted the Sec. 7 of Rule 111 Rules of Court and the Civil Code Art. 36 to
mean that the civil action must be instituted prior to the criminal action for a prejudicial
question to arise.
● Even if the civil case preceded the criminal case, there was no prejudicial question because the
resolution of the civil case did not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused in the
criminal case.
 ● The court reiterated that the elements of the crime under BP 22 are distinct from the terms and
conditions of any contract related to the issuance of the bounced checks.
The court emphasized that the elements of the crime punishable under BP 22 are
specific and separate from any terms or conditions surrounding the contract associated
with the issuance of bounced checks. They reiterated this by stating that the law focuses
solely on the act of issuing a check that later bounces, without regard to the purpose for
which it was issued or the circumstances surrounding its issuance. This means that even
if there was a valid contract or agreement related to the bounced checks, it does not affect the
prosecution under BP 22. The court cited previous cases to support this interpretation,
demonstrating that the law is concerned with prohibiting the making of worthless checks and
their circulation, regardless of the intentions or agreements behind their issuance.

Earlier Law versus Later Law; Amendment and Repeal:

● The court discussed the changes in the Rules of Criminal Procedure and emphasized that the
current rule requires the civil action to be previously instituted before the criminal action.
● It reconciled the provisions of the Rules of Court and the Civil Code to interpret that the civil
action must precede the criminal action for a prejudicial question to exist.

The court highlighted the principle of statutory construction, emphasizing that laws should be
interpreted to be consistent with each other to form a cohesive legal system. It stressed the
importance of harmonizing seemingly conflicting laws and only resorting to choosing between them
when harmonization is impossible. In the context of the case, the court noted that Article 36 of the
Civil Code and Section 7 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court can be interpreted in a way that aligns
both provisions. While Section 7 of Rule 111 explicitly requires a previously instituted civil action,
Article 36 of the Civil Code allows for the suspension of criminal action during different stages of
legal proceedings. This interpretation aims to ensure a unified and coherent legal framework.

Under the old law, Rule 111, Section 5, a prejudicial question arises when a civil action involves
an issue similar or closely related to the issue raised in the criminal action, and the resolution
of this issue in the civil case determines whether the criminal action can proceed. This principle
aims to prevent conflicting decisions and ensures that both civil and criminal cases involving the same
issues are resolved consistently.

However, this provision was later amended by Section 7 of Rule 111. According to the
amendment, for a prejudicial question to exist, the civil action must have been previously
instituted and must involve an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
subsequent criminal action. Additionally, the resolution of this issue in the civil case must
determine whether the criminal action may proceed.

The petitioner interprets Section 7(a) to mean that the civil case must have been filed before the
criminal case in order to create a prejudicial question and suspend the criminal case. This
interpretation is aimed at preventing parties from delaying criminal proceedings by filing civil
actions related to pending criminal actions at a later stage.

OLD LAW :Rule 111, Sec. 5, which states:

SEC. 5. Elements of prejudicial question. — The two (2) essential elements of a prejudicial question
are:

(a) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal
action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.

Thus, the Court has held in numerous cases that the elements of a prejudicial question, as stated in the
above-quoted provision and in Beltran v. People, are:

The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting decisions. It has two
essential elements: (a) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised
in the criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action
may proceed.

Amended by Sec. 7 of Rule 111, which applies here and now provides:

SEC. 7. Elements of prejudicial question.—The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the
previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal
action may proceed. (Emphasis supplied.)

Petitioner interprets Sec. 7(a) to mean that in order for a civil case to create a prejudicial
question and, thus, suspend a criminal case, it must first be established that the civil case was
filed previous to the filing of the criminal case. This, petitioner argues, is specifically to guard
against the situation wherein a party would belatedly file a civil action that is related to a
pending criminal action in order to delay the proceedings in the latter.

CIVIL CODE Art. 36. Pre-judicial questions which must be decided before any criminal prosecution
may be instituted or may proceed, shall be governed by rules of court which the Supreme Court shall
promulgate and which shall not be in conflict with the provisions of this Code.

Vocabulary Words to Remember: