Gosiaco vs Ching Jaime Gosiaco, as an investmednt, granted a loan to ASB Holdings for a period of 48 days with a 10.

.5% interest or 112,000 ASB issued 2 checks to cover the loan and the interest drawn against DBS Bank Makati Gosiaco went to DBS San Juan branch to deposit the checks upon maturity but they were DISHONORED due to a STOP PAYMENT ORDER and INSUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS Gosiaco informed ASB 2x about the dishonor and DEMANDED REPLACEMENT CHECKS or RETURN OF THE MONEY but to no avail - hence a complaint for violation of BP 22 was filed with MTC San Juan Ching was arraigned but Casta remained at large Ching: - denied liability, mere employee of ASB - no knowledge how much money ASB had in the banks - responsibility to check how much was with other dept Gosiaco moved to implead ASB and its President Roxas but was denied because case had already been submitted for final decision MTC: Ching ACQUITTED of criminal liability but NOT ABSOLVED from civil liability - as a corporate officer of ASB, she is CIVILLY LIABLE SINCE SHE WAS A SIGNATORY TO THE CHECKS both parties appealed ot the RTC - Gosiaco: MTC failed to hold ASB and Roxas jointly or severally liable with Ching - Ching: no civil liability because they were contractual obligations of ASB RTC: CHING NO CIVIL LIABILITY (obligation fell squarely on ASB), but still DENIED the motion to implead ASB and Roxas Gosiaco appeal to CA: RTC ERRED IN ABSOLVING CHING and upholding to not implead ASB and Roxas and in refusing to pierce the corporate veil of ASB and hold Roxas liable CA: RTC DECISION AFFIRMED

amount to be recovered was a loan to ASB AND NOT TO CHING Roxas testimony: checks issued by Ching were for and in behalf of ASB -ASB CANNOT BE IMPLEADED IN A BP 22 CASE SINCE IT'S NOT A NATURAL PERSON -Roxas under PI -no need to pierce corp veil since no requisites were present

-appeal to SC via rule 45 - -WON a corporate officer who signed a bouncing check is civilly liable under BP 22 - -WON ASB can be impleaded in a BP 22 case - -WON there's a basis to pierce the corporate veil of ASB Held: DENIED, without prejudice to the right of petitioner Jaime U. Gosiaco to pursue an independent civil action against ASB Holdings Inc. for the amount of the subject checks -BP 22, Section 1 says: - -Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or persons, who actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act. -punishes the act of making and issuing bouncing checks. It is the act itself of issuing the checks which is considered malum prohibitum, covers all types of checks. -a corporate officer who issues a worthless check in the corporate name he may be held personally liable and he cannot shield himself from liability from his own acts on the ground that it was a corporate act and not his personal act -HOWEVER, THE GENERAL RULE IS: a corporate officer who issues a bouncing corporate check can only be held civilly liable when he is convicted -Bautista v. Auto Plus Traders Inc: civil liability of a corporate officer in a B.P. Blg. 22 case is extinguished with the criminal liability -hence, by principle of stare decisis, we follow this precedent and AFFIRM THE DISCHARGE OF CHING OF ANY CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE BP 22 CASE FILED AGAINST HER, ON ACCOUNT OF HER ACQUITTAL IN THE CRIMINAL CHARGE

-however, records clearly show that ASB is civilly obligated to petitioner -Gosiaco has been proceeding from the premise that he is unable to file a separate civil action against ASB to recover amounts- which is why he's been trying to implead ASB as a defendant in the BP 22 case, even if the case is criminal in nature - -anchored on Rule 111, Section 1Institution of criminal and civil action (b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed. Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed. Where the complainant or information also seeks to recover liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the offended party shall pay the filing fees based on the amounts alleged therein. If the amounts are not so alleged but any of these damages are subsequently awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the judgment. -COURT DISAGREES. Nowhere in B.P. Blg. 22 is it provided that a juridical person may be impleaded as an accused or defendant in the prosecution for violations of that law, even in the litigation of the civil aspect thereof - -statutory construction: penal laws strictly construed in favor of the accused -HOWEVER, Gosiaco can't be prevented from recovering amounts due and demandable to him. -rules of procedure can't defeat a substantive right -but technically, nothing in Section 1(b) of Rule 111 prohibits the RESERVATION OF A SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION AGAINST THE JURIDICAL PERSON ON WHOSE BEHALF THE CHECK WAS ISSUED

-WHAT THE RULES PROHIBIT IS THE RESERVATION OF A SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION AGAINST THE NATURAL PERSON CHARGED WITH THE BP 22 VIOLATION, including such corporate officer who had signed the bounced check -B.P. Blg. 22 imposes a distinct civil liability on the signatory of the check which is distinct from the civil liability of the corporation for the amount represented from the check. - -The civil liability attaching to the signatory arises from the wrongful act of signing the check despite the insufficiency of funds in the account, while the civil liability attaching to the corporation is itself the very obligation covered by the check or the consideration for its execution. - -Yet these civil liabilities are mistaken to be indistinct. The confusion is traceable to the singularity of the amount of each. -BP 22 itself fused this criminal liability of the signer of the check in behalf of the corp with the corresponding civil liability of the corp itself BY ALLOWING THE COMPLAINANT TO RECOVER SUCH CIVIL LIABILITY NOT FROM THE CORP BUT FROM THE PERSON WHO SIGNED THE CHECK -the civil action that is impliedly instituted in the B.P. Blg. 22 action is only the civil liability of the signatory, and not that of the corporation itself, the distinctness of the cause of action against the signatory and that against the corporation is rendered beyond dispute -prior to the ROC amendments: it was permissible to pursue criminal liability against the signatory while going after the corporation itself for the civil liability -In the B.P. Blg. 22 case: what the trial court should determine whether or not the signatory had signed the check with knowledge of the insufficiency of funds or credit in the bank account, -in the civil case: The trial court should ascertain whether or not the obligation itself is valid and demandable. -The litigation of both questions could, in theory, proceed independently and simultaneously without being ultimately conclusive on one or the other.

-also, if the employee has no sufficient funds to cover the debt, the corporation can't be held subsidiarily liable - -the Revised Penal Code imposes subsidiary civil liability to corporations for criminal acts engaged in by their employees in the discharge of their duties, said subsidiary liability applies only to felonies, and not to crimes penalized by special laws such as B.P. Blg. 22 - -nothing in B.P. Blg. 22 imposes such subsidiary liability to the corporation in whose name the check is actually issued -Clearly then, should the check signatory be unable to pay the obligation incurred by the corporation, the complainant would be bereft of remedy unless the right of action to collect on the liability of the corporation is recognized -concerns: - -double recovery: BP 22 case sa the employee and civil case sa corp -best we refer the matter to the Committee on Rules for the formulation of proper guidelines to prevent that possibility - -payment of filing fees in both the B.P. Blg. 22 case and the civil action against the corporation -we see no evil or cause for distress if the plaintiff were made to pay filing fees based on the amount of the check in both the B.P. Blg. 22 case and the civil action -the plaintiff therein made the deliberate option to file two separate cases, even if the recovery of the amounts of the check against the corporation could evidently be pursued through the civil action alone. -but in this case, CONSIDERING THE PREVIOUS LEGAL CONFUSION ON WON HE WAS AUTHORIZED TO FILED THE CIVIL CASE AGAINST ASB, GOSIACO SHOULD BE EXEMPTED FROM PAYING THE FILING FEES BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF THE CHECKS IF HE FILES A CASE AGAINST ASB -he shouldn't be barred by prescription either-- to run from the date of finality of this decision

-Let a copy of this Decision be REFERRED to the Committee on Revision of the Rules for the formulation of the formal rules of procedure to govern the civil action for the recovery of the amount covered by the check against the juridical person which issued it.

KRIZIA KATRINA TY-DE ZUZUARREGUI vs. Villarosa and Torres-Ty Katrina's aunt, Rosemary Torres Ty-Rasekhi, sister of her late father Alexander Torres Ty filed for the issuance of letters of admin for the estate of Katrina's grandmother, Bella Torres before RTC Pasig Katrina opposed but both parties later had a compromise agreement which the RTC later approved Peter Torres Ty (Peter) and Catherine Torres Ty-Chavez (Catherine), Rosemary's siblings, filed with the CA a petition to annul judgment approving the compromise agreement o that they also biological children of Bella and that they were also entitled to inherit from her o that no agreement was reached when they were first trying to settle the estate amongst them o that Rosemary wanted to get a bigger share o that they were not aware that Rosemary filed a petition for the issuance of letters of admin and that a CA was approved by Pasig RTC o that Rosemary's petition and CA did not disclose that Peter, Catherine and Fannie were also Bella's heirs Katrina and Rosemary answered o that the 3 siblings were purchased from third persons who represented to Bella and the latters common-law husband, Alejandro Ty, that they were abandoned children o that this was known within the family circle, but was not disclosed to the 3 o that Alejandro and Bella did not legally adopt them; hence, they were never conferred the rights of legitimate children while the action for annulment was pending before the CA, Fannie filed a complaint for falsification and perjury against petitioner and Rosemary

falsely and maliciously stated in the pertinent pleadings filed before the RTC of Pasig City that the late Bella had only two (2) heirs, namely the two (2) of them

o MeTC no GAD CA: certification of non-forum shopping was signed only by petitioner's counsel and not by her Issues WON CA erred in dismissing appeal WON CA erred in not nullifying order of RTC Judge Held: A certification against forum shopping signed by counsel is a defective certification that is equivalent to non-compliance with the requirement and constitutes a valid cause for the dismissal of the petition. exceptions: o interest of substantial justice o if signed only by counsel and duly informed the court of pending cases with another court this case: there was subsequent compliance; submitted together with MR sufficient compliance especially in view of the merits of the case, which may be considered as a special circumstance or a compelling reason that would justify tempering the hard consequence of the procedural requirement on non-forum shopping Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, a criminal action may be suspended upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action, to wit: SEC. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. - A petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests. requisites: o civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based

Katrina and Rosemary filed joint motion to suspend the preliminary investigation for perjury on the ground of a pending prejudicial question before the Court of Appeals o that the issue of whether Peter, Catherine, and Fannie are related to Bella and therefore legal heirs of the latter was pending before the Court of Appeals o investigating prosecutor denied the joint motion and found probable cause against petitioner and Rosemary for two (2) counts each of falsification of public documents o prosecutor held that the issue before the Court of Appeals is the validity of the compromise agreement which is not determinative of the criminal case which involves the liability of petitioner and Rosemary for falsification, allegedly for willfully making the false statements in the opposition to the petition for letters of administration and in the subsequent compromise agreement filed before the RTC of Pasig City. 3 informations were filed against Katrina and Rosemary for perjury was filed with Makati MeTC Katrina filed a petition for review with the DOJ and a motion to defer proceedings with the MeTC on the ground of pending appeal before the DOJ Kat and Rosemary also filed with the MeTC separate motions to suspend proceedings on the ground of prejudicial question all were denied o MeTC agreed with the prosecutor Kat filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with Makati RTC RTC: denied, MR also denied o no prejudicial question: quantum of evidence in the civil action for annulment of judgment differs from the quantum of evidence required in the criminal action for falsification of public documents

resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined o jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal no prejudicial question if issue in civil actino will not determine the criminal responsibility of the accued in the criminal action based on the same facts no prejudicial question if there's no necessity that the civil case be determined first before taking up the criminal case no prejudicial question if both cases can proceed independently of each other issue of annulment case with CA: principally for the determination of the validity of the compromise agreement which did not include Peter, Catherine, and Fannie as heirs of Bella. Peter, Catherine, and Fannie presented evidence to prove that they are also biological children of Bella and Alejandro issue of criminal case: whether petitioner committed falsification of public documents in executing pleadings containing untruthful statements that she and Rosemary were the only legal heirs of Bella RESULT OF CIVIL CASE WILL DETERMINE THE INNOCENCE OR GUILT OF KATRINA IN CRIMINAL CASES FOR FALSIFICATION if it is finally adjudged in the civil case that they are not biological children of the late Bella and consequently not entitled to a share in her estate as heirs, there is no more basis to proceed with the criminal cases against petitioner who could not have committed falsification in her pleadings

Manebo vs Acosta early evening, Bernadette Dimatulac and Flordeliza Bagasa were seated beside each other on a papag watching TV inside the church of the Kaibigan Foundation SPO1 Roel Acosta, with an unidentified male companion, both with short firearms entered the church, approached the 2 girls and at an arm's length, SHOT THE DIMATULAC SEVERAL TIMES ON THE HEAD AND BODY CAUSING HER IMMEDIATE DEATH 2 men immediately boarded an owner jeep without a plate number and left: to San Leonardo Sardia, bystander, saw the 2 men, the jeep and recognized the driver as Numeriano Sapiandante, the Barangay Capt of San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija complaint for murder was filed by SISTER of Dimatulac, Nieva Manebo, against Acosta and Sapiandante before the Special Action Unit (SAU) of the NBI SAU recommended the filing murder case against Acosta, Sapiandante and John Doe was referred to the Chief State Prosecutor (OCSP), DOJ for preliminary investigation respondents, in turn, filed directly with the DOJ a COUNTERCHARGE OF PERJURY, OFFERING FALSE WITNESS AND VIOLATION OF PD 1829 against complainants o Acosta: denied, on special assignment in San Leonardo, no reason for him to kill, Bagasan's description did not fit his physical attributes, substitution of witness (person identified to be beside victim when shot is Liza Gragasan and not Flordeliza Bagasan, presented affidavits of his witnesses that he was in San Leonardo o Sapiadante: denied driving get-away vehicle, he did not know how to drive nor was he a holder of a driver's license, that Sardia had a grudge against him because of the dismissal of case filed by Sardia against him, and that Acosta never testified for him in another case State prosecutor Abad issued a joint resolution, approved by Chief State Prosecutor recommending the filing of the murder charges and the dismissal of the counter-charge same day, info was filed with the RTC Cabanatuan City March 23, 2001: respondents filed appeal with the DOJ

meanwhile the case was transferred to Manila RTC and February 23, 2003: alias warrants of arrest were issued June 27: DOJ Secretary issued a resolution o appealed resolution is hereby REVERSED. The Chief State Prosecutor is directed to move for the withdrawal of the information filed against respondents and to report the action taken hereon within ten (10) days from receipt hereof o alibi inherently weak, but assumed strength and significance because complainants failed to adduce the required quantum of proof o that Gragasan was beside the victim but was not able to respond regarding the shooting incident o that after 4 months, a certain Flordeliza comes forth, presented affidavit and alleged that she was seated beside the victim and witnessed the actual shooting o Bagasan's description of assailant did not fit the physical attributes of Acosta o that Manebo only alleged that Acosta only changed his appearance to avoid being recognized o Bagasan's presence at the crime scene when the crime was being committed is highly suspect. Bagasan's delayed testimony coupled with an erroneous description, casts a thick cloud of doubt on her credibility o Sardia was not among those mentioned in the police report and his testimony was likewise belatedly executed. Sardia's testimony may also not be given credence with respect to respondent Acosta since he did not witness the actual shooting of the victim. prosecutor filed a Motion to Withdraw the Information petitioner filed with the OP, which dismissed the appeal and AFFIRMED THE RESOLUTION OF THE DOJ SECRETARY petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 43 with the CA Meanwhile, the RTC of Manila resolved to suspend the resolution on the motion to withdraw o respondents were still at large and had not been prejudiced by the the petition for filing with the CA anyway o ruled for the suspension of the implementation of the warrants of arrest for respondents as moved by the

respondents' counsel until after the resolution of the petition filed before the CA. CA rendered the assailed Decision dismissing the petition for lack of merit o CA said that the OP committed no error in affirming the resolution of the DOJ Secretary; that courts will not interfere in the conduct of preliminary investigations and leave to the investigating prosecutor a sufficient latitude of discretion in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish probable cause for the filing of information against the offender