Dreamwork v Janiola (DIGEST) ISSUE: Whether or not the MTC or RTC Court erred in its discretion to suspend proceedings

in Criminal Case on the basis of “Prejudicial Question “, with respect to the Civil Case
G.R. No. 184861; 30 June 2009 belatedly filed.

FACTS:

This case is a petition for the reversal of the decision on the suspension of the criminal HELD: This petition must be granted, pursuant to SEC. 7.Elements of prejudicial question.
proceeding filed by the petitioner in the MTC for the ground that there is a presence of
prejudicial question with respect to the civil case belatedly filed by the respondent. The elements of a prejudicial question are:

The petitioner appealed to RTC but denied Dreamwork, through its President, and Vice-
President, filed a Complaint Affidavit against Janiola for violation of BP 22 at the Office of
the City Prosecutor of Las Piñas City. (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the
issue raised in the subsequent criminal action; and
Correspondingly, the former also filed a criminal information for violation of BP 22 against
private respondent with the MTC, entitled People of the Philippines v. Cleofe S. Janiola. On (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.
September 20, 2006, Janiola instituted a civil complaint against petitioner for the rescission of
an alleged construction agreement between the parties, as well as for damages.
Under the amendment, a prejudicial question is understood in law as that which must precede
Thereafter, respondent filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings in the Criminal Case for the
the criminal action and which requires a decision before a final judgment can be rendered in
ground that private respondent claim that the civil case posed a prejudicial question against
the criminal action. The civil action must be instituted prior to the institution of the criminal
the criminal case. Petitioner opposed the Respondent’s Motion to Suspend criminal
action.
proceeding based on juridical question for the following grounds:
In this case, the Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan ahead of the complaint in Civil
(1) there is no prejudicial question in this case as the rescission of the contract upon which the
Case filed by the State with the RTC. Thus, no prejudicial question exists. The Resolution of
bouncing checks were issued is a separate and distinct issue from the issue of whether private
the Civil Case Is Not Determinative of the Prosecution of the Criminal Action. Even if the
respondent violated BP 22; and
trial court in the civil case declares that the construction agreement between the parties is void
(2) Section 7, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court states that one of the elements of a prejudicial for lack of consideration, this would not affect the prosecution of private respondent in the
question is that “the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately criminal case. The fact of the matter is that private respondent issued checks that were
related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action”; thus, this element is missing in subsequently dishonored for insufficient funds. It is this fact that is subject of prosecution
this case, the criminal case having preceded the civil case. under BP 22.Therefore, it is clear that the second element required for the existence of a
prejudicial question, is absent. Thus, no prejudicial question exists.
The MTC granted the Respondents Motion to Suspend Proceedings. Petitioner appealed the
Orders to the RTC but denied the petition. Hence, this petition raised.