60. GADITANO VS. SAN MIGUEL CORP. made, drawn, or issued, or at the intention of the drawee, maker or issuer.

ntention of the drawee, maker or issuer. The thrust

of the law is to prohibit the making of worthless checks and putting them into circulation.
G.R. No. 188767. July 24, 2013.* Same; Same; Deceit; In the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of
SPOUSES ARGOVAN and FLORIDA GADITANO, petitioners, vs. SAN MIGUEL the Revised Penal Code, deceit and damage are
CORPORATION, respondent. 193
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Courts; Court of Appeals; Department of Justice; VOL. 702, JULY 24, 2013 193
The Court of Appeals is clothed with jurisdiction to review the resolution issued by the Gaditano vs. Miguel Corporation
Secretary of the Department of Justice (DOJ) through a petition for certiorari under Rule additional and essential elements of the offense.―In the crime of estafa under
65 of the Rules of Court albeit solely on the ground that the Secretary of Justice Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, deceit and damage are
committed grave abuse of his discretion amounting to excess or lack of additional and essential elements of the offense. It is the fraud or deceit employed by
jurisdiction.―The Court of Appeals is clothed with jurisdiction to review the resolution the accused in issuing a worthless check that is penalized. A prima faciepresumption
issued by the Secretary of the DOJ through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the of deceit arises when a check is dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds. Records
Rules of Court albeit solely on the ground that the Secretary of Justice committed grave show that a notice of dishonor as well as demands for payment, were sent to
abuse of his discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. petitioners. The presumption of deceit applies, and petitioners must overcome this
Same; Same; Prejudicial Questions; A prejudicial question generally comes into presumption through substantial evidence. These issues may only be threshed out in
play in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action are both pending and there a criminal investigation which must proceed independently of the civil case.
exists in the former an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the latter may PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.
proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal Castillo, Laman, Tan, Pantaleon & San Jose for petitioners.
case.―A prejudicial question generally comes into play in a situation where a civil Silvestre E. Dollete for respondent.
action and a criminal PEREZ, J.:
_______________ For review on certiorari are the Decision dated 11 March 2008 and Resolution
* SECOND DIVISION. dated 16 July 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No 88431 which reversed
192 the Resolutions issued by the Secretary of Justice, suspending the preliminary
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED investigation of I.S. No. 01-4205 on the ground of prejudicial question.
Gaditano vs. Miguel Corporation Petitioner Spouses Argovan Gaditano (Argovan) and Florida Gaditano (Florida),
action are both pending and there exists in the former an issue which must be who were engaged in the business of buying and selling beer and softdrink products,
preemptively resolved before the latter may proceed, because howsoever the issue purchased beer products from San Miguel Corporation (SMC) in the amount of
raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt P285,504.00 on 7 April 2000. Petitioners paid through a check signed by Florida and
or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. The rationale behind the principle of drawn against Argovan’s AsiaTrust Bank Current Account. When said check was
prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting decisions. presented for payment on 13 April 2000, the check was dishonored for having been
Same; Same; Same; If both civil and criminal cases have similar issues, or the drawn against insufficient funds.
issue in one is intimately related to the issues raised in the other, then a prejudicial 194
question would likely exist, provided that the other element or characteristic is 194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
satisfied.―If both civil and criminal cases have similar issues, or the issue in one is Gaditano vs. Miguel Corporation
intimately related to the issues raised in the other, then a prejudicial question would Despite three (3) written demands,1 petitioner failed to make good of the check. This
likely exist, provided that the other element or characteristic is satisfied. It must appear prompted SMC to file a criminal case for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
not only that the civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution and estafa against petitioners, docketed as I.S. No. 01-4205 with the Office of the
would be based, but also that the resolution of the issues raised in the civil action would Prosecutor in Quezon City on 14 March 2001.
be necessarily determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused. If the resolution In their Counter-Affidavit, petitioners maintained that their checking account was
of the issue in the civil action will not determine the criminal responsibility of the accused funded under an automatic transfer arrangement, whereby funds from their joint
in the criminal action based on the same facts, or if there is no necessity that the civil savings account with AsiaTrust Bank were automatically transferred to their checking
case be determined first before taking up the criminal case, the civil case does not account with said bank whenever a check they issued was presented for payment.
involve a prejudicial question. Neither is there a prejudicial question if the civil and the Petitioners narrated that sometime in 1999, Fatima Padua (Fatima) borrowed
criminal action can, according to law, proceed independently of each other. P30,000.00 from Florida. On 28 February 2000, Fatima delivered Allied Bank Check
Criminal Law; Batas Pambansa Blg. 22; The gravamen of the offense punished No. 82813 dated 18 February 2000 payable to Florida in the amount of P378,000.00.
by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a Said check was crossed and issued by AOWA Electronics. Florida pointed out that the
check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment.―The gravamen of the amount of the check was in excess of the loan but she was assured by Fatima that the
offense punished by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is the act of making and issuing a check was in order and the proceeds would be used for the payroll of AOWA
worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. Batas Electronics. Thus, Florida deposited said check to her joint AsiaTrust Savings Account
Pambansa Blg. 22 punishes the mere act of issuing a worthless check. The law did not which she maintained with her husband, Argovan. The check was cleared on 6 March
look either at the actual ownership of the check or of the account against which it was

Page 1 of 4
2000 and petitioners’ joint savings account was subsequently credited with the sum of preliminary investigation until completed is ordered and if probable cause
P378,000.00. Florida initially paid P83,000.00 to Fatima. She then withdrew exists, let the corresponding information against the respondents be filed.4
P295,000.00 from her joint savings account and turned over the amount to Fatima. The Court of Appeals drew a distinction between the civil case which is an action
Fatima in turn paid her loan to Florida. for specific performance and damages involving petitioners’ joint savings account, and
Petitioners claimed that on 7 April 2000, the date when they issued the check to the criminal case which is an action for estafa/violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
SMC, their joint savings account had a balance of P330,353.17. 2 As of 13 April 2000, involving Argovan’s current account. The Court of Appeals belied the claim of
petitioners’ balance even amounted to P412,513.17.3 petitioners about an automatic fund transfer arrangement from petitioners’ joint savings
_______________ account to Argovan’s current account.
1 Records, pp. 83-85. By petition for review, petitioners assail the ruling of the Court of Appeals on the
2 Id., at p. 73. following grounds:
3 Id., at pp. 70 and 72. I. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR AND
195 EXCEEDED THE BOUNDS OF ITS JURISDICTION IN GIVING DUE
VOL. 702, JULY 24, 2013 195 COURSE TO RESPONDENT’S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.
Gaditano vs. Miguel Corporation II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REVERSING THE RESOLUTIONS
On 13 April 2000, Gregorio Guevarra (Guevarra), the Bank Manager of AsiaTrust DATED JUNE 3, 2004 AND DECEMBER 15, 2004 OF THE DOJ, THERE
Bank, advised Florida that the Allied Bank Check No. 82813 for P378,000.00, the same BEING NO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
check handed to her by Fatima, was not cleared due to a material alteration in the name III. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THERE WAS NO
of the payee. Guevarra explained further that the check was allegedly drawn payable PREJUDICIAL QUESTION BELOW
to LG Collins Electronics, and not to her, contrary to Fatima’s representation. AsiaTrust _______________
Bank then garnished the P378,000.00 from the joint savings account of petitioners 4 Rollo, p. 47.
without any court order. Consequently, the check issued by petitioners to SMC was 197
dishonored having been drawn against insufficient funds. VOL. 702, JULY 24, 2013 197
On 23 October 2000, petitioners filed an action for specific performance and Gaditano vs. Miguel Corporation
damages against AsiaTrust Bank, Guevarra, SMC and Fatima, docketed as Civil Case BECAUSE TWO DIFFERENT BANK ACCOUNTS ARE INVOLVED IN THE
No. Q-00-42386. Petitioners alleged that AsiaTrust Bank and Guevarra unlawfully CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES.
garnished and debited their bank accounts; that their obligation to SMC had been IV. THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN REQUIRING PETITIONERS TO
extinguished by payment; and that Fatima issued a forged check. PRESENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE PREJUDICIAL QUESTION
Petitioners assert that the issues they have raised in the civil action constitute a bar DURING THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION.5
to the prosecution of the criminal case for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 The issues raised by petitioners are divided into the procedural issue of
and estafa. whether certiorari is the correct mode of appeal to the Court of Appeals and the
On 29 January 2002, the Office of the Prosecutor recommended that the criminal substantive issue of whether a prejudicial question exists to warrant the suspension of
proceedings be suspended pending resolution of Civil Case No. Q-00-42386. SMC the criminal proceedings.
thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration before the Office of the Prosecutor but it On the procedural issue, petitioners contend that SMC’s resort to certiorari under
was denied for lack of merit on 19 September 2002. Rule 65 was an improper remedy because the DOJ’s act of sustaining the investigating
SMC filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) a petition for review challenging prosecutor’s resolution to suspend the criminal proceedings due to a valid prejudicial
the Resolutions of the Office of the Prosecutor. In a Resolution dated 3 June 2004, the question was an error in judgment and not of jurisdiction. Petitioners further assert that
DOJ dismissed the petition. SMC filed a motion for reconsideration, which the DOJ nevertheless, an error of judgment is not correctible by certiorari when SMC had a
Secretary denied in a Resolution dated 15 December 2004. plain, speedy and adequate remedy, which was to file an appeal to the Office of the
Undaunted, SMC went up to the Court of Appeals by filling a petition for certiorari, President.
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 88431. The procedure taken up by petitioner was correct.
196 The Court of Appeals is clothed with jurisdiction to review the resolution issued by
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED the Secretary of the DOJ through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Gaditano vs. Miguel Corporation Court albeit solely on the ground that the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse
On 11 March 2008, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision granting the petition as of his discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.6
follows: In Alcaraz v. Gonzalez,7 we stressed that the resolution of the Investigating
IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED. The Prosecutor is subject to appeal to the Justice Secretary who exercises the power of
Resolutions of the Department of Justice dated June 3, 2004 and December control and supervision
15, 2004 are SET ASIDE. In view thereof, let the suspension of the preliminary _______________
investigation of the case docketed as I.S. No. 01-4205 with the Office of the 5 Id., at p. 20.
Prosecutor of Quezon City be LIFTED. Accordingly, the continuation of the 6 Chong v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 184948, 21 July 2009, 593 SCRA 311, 314-315.
7 533 Phil. 796; 502 SCRA 518 (2006).
198

Page 2 of 4
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure states the two
Gaditano vs. Miguel Corporation elements necessary for a civil case to be considered a prejudicial question, to wit:
over said Investigating Prosecutor; and who may affirm, nullify, reverse, or modify the Section 7. Elements of prejudicial question.—The elements of a
ruling of such prosecutor. Thus, while the Court of Appeals may review the resolution prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an
of the Justice Secretary, it may do so only in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent
the Rules of Court, solely on the ground that the Secretary of Justice committed grave criminal action, and (b) the resolu-
abuse of his discretion amounting to excess of lack of jurisdiction. 8 _______________
Also, in Tan v. Matsuura,9 we held that while the findings of prosecutors are 11 Jose v. Suarez, G.R. No. 176795, 30 June 2008, 556 SCRA 773, 781-782
reviewable by the DOJ, this does not preclude courts from intervening and exercising citing Carlos v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 490, 499; 268 SCRA 25, 33 (1997)
our own powers of review with respect to the DOJ’s findings. In the exceptional case in citing further Tuanda v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 110544, 17 October 1995, 249
which grave abuse of discretion is committed, as when a clear sufficiency or SCRA 342, 350-351.
insufficiency of evidence to support a finding of probable cause is ignored, the Court of 200
Appeals may take cognizance of the case via a petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of 200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Court.10 Gaditano vs. Miguel Corporation
We agree with the Court of Appeals that the DOJ abused its discretion when it tion of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may
affirmed the prosecutor’s suspension of the criminal investigation due to the existence proceed. (Emphasis supplied).
of an alleged prejudicial question. If both civil and criminal cases have similar issues, or the issue in one is intimately
We expound. related to the issues raised in the other, then a prejudicial question would likely exist,
Petitioners insist that the Court of Appeals erroneously ruled against the existence provided that the other element or characteristic is satisfied. It must appear not only
of a prejudicial question by separately treating their joint savings account and Argovan’s that the civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution would
current account, and concluding therefrom that the civil and criminal cases could be based, but also that the resolution of the issues raised in the civil action would be
proceed independently of each other. It is argued that the appellate court overlooked necessarily determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused. If the resolution of
the fact that petitioners had an automatic transfer arrangement with AsiaTrust Bank, the issue in the civil action will not determine the criminal responsibility of the accused
such that funds from the savings account were automatically transferred to their in the criminal action based on the same facts, or if there is no necessity that the civil
checking account whenever a check they issued was presented for payment. case be determined first before taking up the criminal case, the civil case does not
Petitioners 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.12
8 Id., at p. 807; p. 529. The issue in the criminal case is whether the petitioner is guilty of estafa and
9 G.R. No. 179003, 9 January 2013, 688 SCRA 263 citing Tan v. Ballena, G.R. violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, while in the civil case, it is whether AsiaTrust
No. 168111, 4 July 2008, 557 SCRA 229, 252-253. Bank had lawfully garnished the P378,000.00 from petitioners’ savings account.
10 Tan v. Matsuura, id. The subject of the civil case is the garnishment by AsiaTrust Bank of petitioner’s
199 savings account. Based on petitioners’ account, they deposited the check given to them
VOL. 702, JULY 24, 2013 199 by Fatima in their savings account. The amount of said check was initially credited to
Gaditano vs. Miguel Corporation petitioners’ savings account but the Fatima check was later on dishonored because
maintain that since the checking account was funded by the monies deposited in the there was an
savings account, what mattered was the sufficiency of the funds in the savings account. _______________
Hence, petitioners’ separate action against AsiaTrust Bank for unlawfully garnishing 12 Reyes v. Rossi, G.R. No. 159823, 18 February 2013, 691 SCRA 57; Yap v.
their savings account, which eventually resulted in the dishonor of their check to SMC, Cabales, G.R. No. 159186, 5 June 2009, 588 SCRA 426, 432-433; Reyes v. Pearlbank
poses a prejudicial question in the instant criminal proceedings. Securities, Inc., G.R. No. 171435, 30 July 2008, 560 SCRA 518, 539-540; People v.
Moreover, petitioners argue that they were not required to fully and exhaustively Consing, Jr., 443 Phil. 454, 460; 395 SCRA 366, 371 (2003); Sabandal v. Hon. Tongco,
present evidence to prove their claims. The presentation of their passbook, which 419 Phil. 13, 18; 366 SCRA 567, 572 (2001).
confirmed numerous withdrawals made on the savings account and indicated as “FT” 201
or “Fund Transfer,” proved the existence of fund transfer from their savings account to VOL. 702, JULY 24, 2013 201
the checking account. Gaditano vs. Miguel Corporation
A prejudicial question generally comes into play in a situation where a civil action alleged alteration in the name of the payee. As a result, the bank debited the amount
and a criminal action are both pending and there exists in the former an issue which of the check from petitioners’ savings account. Now, petitioners seek to persuade us
must be preemptively resolved before the latter may proceed, because howsoever the that had it not been for the unlawful garnishment, the funds in their savings account
issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the would have been sufficient to cover a check they issued in favor of SMC.
guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. The rationale behind the principle The material facts surrounding the civil case bear no relation to the criminal
of prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting decisions. 11 investigation being conducted by the prosecutor. The prejudicial question in the civil
case involves the dishonor of another check. SMC is not privy to the nature of the

Page 3 of 4
alleged materially altered check leading to its dishonor and the eventual garnishment Gaditano vs. Miguel Corporation
of petitioners’ savings account. The source of the funds of petitioners’ savings account WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of
is no longer SMC’s concern. The matter is between petitioners and AsiaTrust Bank. On Appeals dated 11 March 2008 and its Resolution dated 16 July 2009, in CA-G.R. SP
the other hand, the issue in the preliminary investigation is whether petitioners issued No. 88431, are hereby AFFIRMED.
a bad check to SMC for the payment of beer products. SO ORDERED.
The gravamen of the offense punished by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is the act of Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
presentation for payment.13 Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 punishes the mere act of issuing Notes.―A prejudicial question is defined as that which arises in a case, the
a worthless check. The law did not look either at the actual ownership of the check or resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the
of the account against which it was made, drawn, or issued, or at the intention of the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. (Strategic Alliance Development
drawee, maker or issuer.14 The thrust of the law is to prohibit the making of worthless Corporation vs. Star Infrastructure Development Corporation, 647 SCRA 545 [2011])
checks and putting them into circulation.15 What Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 punishes is the mere act of issuing a worthless
_______________ check. The law does not look either at the actual ownership of the check or of the
13 Medalla v. Laxa, G.R. No. 193362, 18 January 2012, 663 SCRA 461, 466. account against which it was made, drawn, or issued, or at the intention of the drawee,
14 Resterio v. People, G.R. No. 177438, 24 September 2012, 681 SCRA 592, 597. maker or issuer. (Resterio vs. People, 681 SCRA 592 [2012])
15 Ty v. People, 482 Phil. 427, 445; 439 SCRA 220, 235 (2004) citing Caram ――o0o――
Resources Corp. v. Contreras, A.M. No. MTJ-93-849, 26 October 1994, 237 SCRA © Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
724, 732-733; Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108738, 17 June 1994, 233 SCRA
301, 308-309.
202
202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gaditano vs. Miguel Corporation
Even if the trial court in the civil case declares AsiaTrust Bank liable for the unlawful
garnishment of petitioners’ savings account, petitioners cannot be automatically
adjudged free from criminal liability for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, because
the mere issuance of worthless checks with knowledge of the insufficiency of funds to
support the checks is in itself the offense.16
Furthermore, three notices of dishonor were sent to petitioners, who then, should
have immediately funded the check. When they did not, their liabilities under the
bouncing checks law attached. Such liability cannot be affected by the alleged
prejudicial question because their failure to fund the check upon notice of dishonour is
itself the offense.
In the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code,
deceit and damage are additional and essential elements of the offense. It is the fraud
or deceit employed by the accused in issuing a worthless check that is
penalized.17 A prima faciepresumption of deceit arises when a check is dishonored for
lack or insufficiency of funds.18 Records show that a notice of dishonor as well as
demands for payment, were sent to petitioners. The presumption of deceit applies, and
petitioners must overcome this presumption through substantial evidence. These
issues may only be threshed out in a criminal investigation which must proceed
independently of the civil case.
Based on the foregoing, we rule that the resolution of the issue raised in the civil
action is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal
investigation against them. There is no necessity that the civil case be determined first
before taking up the criminal complaints.
_______________
16 Yap v. Cabales, supra note 12 at p. 433.
17 People v. Reyes, 494 Phil. 620, 629; 454 SCRA 635, 647 (2005).
18 Dy v. People, G.R. No. 158312, 14 November 2008, 571 SCRA 59, 74.
203
VOL. 702, JULY 24, 2013 203

Page 4 of 4