Crimpro Digests PQ

7/25/2019 Crimpro Digests PQ

1/24

1

I. G.R. No. 183805 Capili v. People July 3, 2013

Facts: 1. On June 28, 2004, petitioner was charged with the crime of bigamy before the egiona!

"ria! #ourt $"#% of &asig #ity. On or about 'ecember 8, 1(((, accused being pre)ious!y united

in !awfu! marriage with *ar!a +. edina-#api!i and without said marriage ha)ing been !ega!!y

disso!)ed or annu!!ed, did then and there wi!!fu!!y, un!awfu!!y and fe!onious!y contract a secondmarriage with hir!ey /. "ismo, to the damage and preudice of the !atter.

2. &etitioner thereafter fi!ed a otion to uspend &roceedings a!!eging that the pendency of

the ci)i! case for the dec!aration of nu!!ity of the second marriage ser)es as a preudicia! uestion

in the instant crimina! case.

. "# of 3ntipo!o #ity rendered a decision dec!aring the )oidness or incipient in)a!idity of

the second marriage between petitioner and pri)ate respondent on the ground that a subseuent

marriage contracted by the husband during the !ifetime of the !ega! wife is )oid from the

beginning. "hereafter, the petitioner accused fi!ed his anifestation and otion $to 'ismiss%praying for the dismissa! of the crimina! case for bigamy fi!ed against him on the ground that the

second marriage between him and pri)ate respondent had a!ready been dec!ared )oid by the

"#.

4. "# of &asig #ity granted the motion. #3 re)ersed.

ssue: 567 subseuent dec!aration of nu!!ity of the second marriage is a ground for dismissa!

of the crimina! case for bigamy.

'ecision: 7O

1. "he subseuent udicia! dec!aration of the nu!!ity of the first marriage was immateria!

because prior to the dec!aration of nu!!ity, the crime had a!ready been consummated. oreo)er,

petitioners assertion wou!d on!y de!ay the prosecution of bigamy cases considering that an

accused cou!d simp!y fi!e a petition to dec!are his pre)ious marriage )oid and in)o9e the

pendency of that action as a preudicia! uestion in the crimina! case. 5e cannot a!!ow that.

2. "he outcome of the ci)i! case for annu!ment of petitioners marriage to pri)ate

comp!ainant; had no bearing upon the determination of petitioners innocence or gui!t in the

crimina! case for bigamy, because a!! that is reuired for the charge of bigamy to prosper is that

the first marriage be subsisting at the time the second marriage is contracted.

. "hus, under the !aw, a marriage, e)en one which is )oid or )oidab!e, sha!! be deemed )a!id

unti! dec!ared otherwise in a udicia! proceeding. n this case, e)en if petitioner e)entua!!y

obtained a dec!aration that his first marriage was )oid ab initio, the point is, both the first and the

second marriage were subsisting before the first marriage was annu!!ed.

1


2/24

2

4. t is undisputed that a second marriage between petitioner and pri)ate respondent was

contracted on 'ecember 8, 1((( during the subsistence of a )a!id first marriage between

petitioner and *ar!a +. edina-#api!i contracted on eptember , 1(((. 7otab!y, the "# of

3ntipo!o #ity itse!f dec!ared the bigamous nature of the second marriage between petitioner and

pri)ate respondent. "hus, the subseuent udicia! dec!aration of the second marriage for being

bigamous in nature does not bar the prosecution of petitioner for the crime of bigamy.

. "herefore, he who contracts a second marriage before the udicia! dec!aration of the firstmarriage assumes the ris9 of being prosecuted for bigamy.

?. Fina!!y, it is a sett!ed ru!e that the crimina! cu!pabi!ity attaches to the offender upon the

commission of the offense, and from that instant, !iabi!ity appends to him unti! e=tinguished as

pro)ided by !aw. t is c!ear then that the crime of bigamy was committed by petitioner from the

time he contracted the second marriage with pri)ate respondent. "hus, the fina!ity of the udicia!

dec!aration of nu!!ity of petitioners second marriage does not impede the fi!ing of a crimina!

charge for bigamy against him.

2


3/24

3

II. G.R. No. 166836 San Miguel v Perez Sep !, 2013

Facts: 1. &etitioner an igue! &roperties nc. $an igue! &roperties%, a domestic corporation

engaged in the rea! estate business, purchased in 1((2, 1(( and 3pri! 1(( from @.F. Aomes,

nc. $@F Aomes%, then represented by 3tty. F!orencio @. Orendain $Orendain% as its du!y

authoriBed rehabi!itation recei)er appointed by the ecurities and C=change #ommission $C#%,

10 residentia! !ots situated in its subdi)ision @F Aomes &araDaue, containing a tota! area of

44,4< suare meters for the aggregate price of &10>,248,000.00. "he transactions were

embodied in three separate deeds of sa!e. "he "#"s co)ering the !ots bought under the first and

second deeds were fu!!y de!i)ered to an igue! &roperties, but 20 "#"s co)ering 20 of the 41

parce!s of !and with a tota! area of 12?.00, were not de!i)ered to an igue! &roperties.

2. On its part, @F Aomes c!aimed that it withhe!d the de!i)ery of the 20 "#"s for parce!s of

!and purchased under the third deed of sa!e because 3tty. Orendain had ceased to be its

rehabi!itation recei)er at the time of the transactions after being meanwhi!e rep!aced as recei)er

by F@O 7etwor9 anagement, nc. on ay 1?, 1(8( pursuant to an order from the C#. @F

Aomes refused to de!i)er the 20 "#"s despite demands. "hus, on 3ugust 1


4/24

4

'ecision: 7O

1. 3 preudicia! uestion is understood in !aw to be that which arises in a case the reso!ution

of which is a !ogica! antecedent of the issue in)o!)ed in the crimina! case, and the cogniBance of

which pertains to another tribuna!. t is determinati)e of the crimina! case, but the urisdiction to

try and reso!)e it is !odged in another court or tribuna!. t is based on a fact distinct and separatefrom the crime but is so intimate!y connected with the crime that it determines the gui!t or

innocence of the accused. "he rationa!e behind the princip!e of preudicia! uestion is to a)oid

conf!icting decisions.

2. "he concept of a preudicia! uestion in)o!)es a ci)i! action and a crimina! case. +et,

contrary to an igue! &roperties submission that there cou!d be no preudicia! uestion to

spea9 of because no ci)i! action where the preudicia! uestion arose was pending, the action for

specific performance in the AE@ raises a preudicia! uestion that sufficed to suspend the

proceedings determining the charge for the crimina! )io!ation of ection 2< of &residentia!

'ecree 7o. (


5/24

5

III. G.R. No. 15"823 Reye# v. Ro##i $e% 18, 2013

Facts: 1. On October 1, 1((?, petitioner "eodoro 3. eyes $eyes% and 3d)anced Foundation

#onstruction ystems #orporation $3d)anced Foundation%, representedG by its C=ecuti)e &roect'irector, respondent Cttore ossi $ossi%, e=ecuted a deed of conditiona! sa!e in)o!)ing the

purchase by eyes of euipment consisting of a 5arman 'redging &ump A+ 003 worth

&10,000,000.00. "he parties agreed therein that eyes wou!d pay the sum of &,000,000.00 as

downpayment, and the ba!ance of &?,000,000.00 through four post-dated chec9s. eyes

comp!ied, but in January 1((8, he reuested the restructuring of his ob!igation under the deed of

conditiona! sa!e by rep!acing the four post-dated chec9s with nine post- dated chec9s that wou!d

inc!ude interest at the rate of &2


6/24

6

@ouncing #hec9s Eaw $@atas &ambansa @!g. 22% arising from the dishonor of the chec9s the

buyer issued in connection with the sa!e.

2. t is true that the rescission of a contract resu!ts in the e=tinguishment of the ob!igatory

re!ation as if it was ne)er created, the e=tinguishment ha)ing a retroacti)e effect. "he rescission

is eui)a!ent to in)a!idating and unma9ing the uridica! tie, !ea)ing things in their status beforethe ce!ebration of the contract. Aowe)er, unti! the contract is rescinded, the uridica! tie and the

concomitant ob!igations subsist.

. "he )io!ation of @atas &ambansa @!g. 22 reuires the concurrence of the fo!!owing

e!ements, name!y: $1% the ma9ing, drawing, and issuance of any chec9 to app!y for account or for

)a!ueK $2% the 9now!edge of the ma9er, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not ha)e

sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee ban9 for the payment of the chec9 in fu!! upon its

presentmentK and $% the subseuent dishonor of the chec9 by the drawee ban9 for insufficiency

of funds or credit or dishonour for the same reason had not the drawer, without any )a!id cause,

ordered the ban9 to stop payment.21 "he issue in the crimina! actions upon the )io!ations of@atas &ambansa @!g. 22 is, therefore, whether or not eyes issued the dishonoured chec9s

9nowing them to be without funds upon presentment.

4. On the other hand, the issue in the ci)i! action for rescission is whether or not the breach

in the fu!fi!ment of 3d)anced Foundations ob!igation warranted the rescission of the conditiona!

sa!e. f, after tria! on the merits in the ci)i! action, 3d)anced Foundation wou!d be found to ha)e

committed materia! breach as to warrant the rescission of the contract, such resu!t wou!d not

necessari!y mean that eyes wou!d be abso!)ed of the crimina! responsibi!ity for issuing the

dishonored chec9s because, as the aforementioned e!ements show, he a!ready committed the

)io!ations upon the dishonor of the chec9s that he had issued at a time when the conditiona! sa!ewas sti!! fu!!y binding upon the parties. Ais ob!igation to fund the chec9s or to ma9e

arrangements for them with the drawee ban9 shou!d not be tied up to the future e)ent of

e=tinguishment of the ob!igation under the contract of sa!e through rescission. ndeed, under

@atas &ambansa @!g. 22, the mere issuance of a worth!ess chec9 was a!ready the offense in itse!f.

nder such circumstances, the crimina! proceedings for the )io!ation of @atas &ambansa @!g. 22

cou!d proceed despite the pendency of the ci)i! action for rescission of the conditiona! sa!e.


7/24

7

IV. GR 1833!" $&' (e Ca#ro v. )la#*o Sep 1!, 2011

Facts: 1. Forfom 'e)e!opment #orporation $Forfom% is the registered owner of the 114-

hectare Li!!a O!ympia ubdi)ision in @arrio an Licente, an &edro, Eaguna. On 3ugust 2


8/24

8

?. On January , the "# issued the assai!ed order;granting FMC

#orporations motion to suspend proceedings in #i)i! #ase 7o. &E-0((1. On October 22,

200?, the #3 rendered its decision nu!!ifying and setting aside the assai!ed order of the "#.

ssue: 567 a stay in the proceedings in #i)i! #ase 7o. &E-0((1 in order to gi)e way to the

proceedings in #i)i! #ase 7o. &E-0 is udicious as there is a preudicia! uestion.

'ecision: 7O

1. First, the subect matter or res in)o!)ed in #i)i! #ase 7o. &E-0((1 is different from

those in #i)i! #ase 7o. &E-0. FMC #orporation see9s to reco)er subdi)ision !ots !ocated in

&hase 1 and 1-3 of Forfoms subdi)ision whi!e the O!asos see9 to reco)er their fu!!y paid !ot in

&hase L of the same subdi)ision.

2. econd, the parties in both cases are different. "he !itigation in #i)i! #ase 7o. &E-0

is between the de)e!oper, FMC #orporation, and the subdi)ision owner, Forfom, whi!e the parties

in the proceedings in #i)i! #ase 7o. &E-0((1 are FMC #orporation, as annotator of the 7otice

of Eis &endens and the O!asos, as fu!!y paid !ot buyers.

. "hird, the prayers are different. n #i)i! #ase 7o. &E-0((1, the O!asos want to cance! the

annotation of the 7otice of Eis &endensstamped on their certificate of tit!e o)er the piece of

property described as Eot 10, @!oc9 0, &hase L of the Li!!a O!ympia ubdi)ision, which they

bought from Forfom. n #i)i! #ase 7o. &E-0, the prayer was for the de!i)ery of the

certificates of tit!e o)er ? !ots situated in &hase 1 and 1-3 of the same subdi)ision and the

payment of a sum of money and damages.

4. For said reasons, the proceedings in #i)i! #ase 7o. &E-0((1 can continue independent!yof #i)i! #ase 7o. &E-0.

8
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/183349.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/183349.htm#_ftn4


9/24

9

V. GR 1+2060 Pienel v. Pienel Sep 13, 2010

Facts: 1. On 2< October 2004, aria #hrysantine &imente! y Eacap $pri)ate respondent% fi!ed an

action for frustrated parricide against Jose!ito . &imente! $petitioner%, doc9eted as #rimina!#ase 7o. H-04-1041


10/24

10

the issue in the crimina! case for parricide. Further, the re!ationship between the offender and the

)ictim is not determinati)e of the gui!t or innocence of the accused.

. "he issue in the ci)i! case for annu!ment of marriage under 3rtic!e > of the Fami!y

#ode is whether petitioner is psycho!ogica!!y incapacitated to comp!y with the essentia! marita!

ob!igations. "he issue in parricide is whether the accused 9i!!ed the )ictim. n this case, sincepetitioner was charged with frustrated parricide, the issue is whether he performed a!! the acts of

e=ecution which wou!d ha)e 9i!!ed respondent as a conseuence but which, ne)erthe!ess, did not

produce it by reason of causes independent of petitioners wi!!. 3t the time of the commission of

the a!!eged crime, petitioner and respondent were married. "he subseuent disso!ution of their

marriage, in case the petition in #i)i! #ase 7o. 04-?(2 is granted, wi!! ha)e no effect on the

a!!eged crime that was committed at the time of the subsistence of the marriage. n short, e)en if

the marriage between petitioner and respondent is annu!!ed, petitioner cou!d sti!! be he!d

crimina!!y !iab!e since at the time of the commission of the a!!eged crime, he was sti!! married to

respondent.

10


11/24

11

VI. GR 1+!168 S-iou v. ela#*o Mar*- 30, 200"

Facts: 1. On 0 ay 200, four crimina! comp!aints were fi!ed by y #him and Fe!icidad

#han y $pouses y% against y "iong hiou, Juanita "an y, Jo!ie oss "an, omer "an,#har!ie "an and Jessie James "an $y "iong hiou, et a!.% before the #ity &rosecutors Office of

ani!a. "he cases were !ater conso!idated. "wo of the comp!aints, .. 7os. 0C-1


12/24

12

1. "he ci)i! action for accounting and damages, #i)i! #ase 7o. 0-10>4 pending before

the "# ani!a, @ranch 4>, see9s the issuance of an order compe!!ing the pouses y to render

a fu!!, comp!ete and true accounting of a!! the amounts, proceeds and fund paid to, recei)ed and

earned by the corporation since 1(( and to restitute it such amounts, proceeds and funds

which the pousesy ha)e misappropriated. "he crimina! cases, on the other hand, charge that

the pouses y were i!!ega!!y pre)ented from getting inside company premises and from

inspecting company records, and that y "iong hiou fa!sified the entries in the /, specifica!!y

the pouses ys shares in the corporation. ure!y, the ci)i! case presents no preudicia! uestion

to the crimina! cases since a finding that the pouses y mishand!ed the funds wi!! ha)e no effect

on the determination of gui!t in the comp!aint for )io!ation of ection ?4 in re!ation to ection

144 of the #orporation #odeK the ci)i! case concerns the )a!idity of y "iong hious refusa! to

a!!ow inspection of the records, whi!e in the fa!sification and perury cases, what is materia! is

the )eracity of the entries made by y "iong hiou in the sworn /.

2. n a crimina! comp!aint for )io!ation of ection ?4 of the #orporation #ode, the defense

of improper use or moti)e is in the nature of a ustifying circumstance that wou!d e=onerate those

who raise and are ab!e to pro)e the same. 3ccording!y, where the corporation denies inspection

on the ground of improper moti)e or purpose, the burden of proof is ta9en from the shareho!der

and p!aced on the corporation. Aowe)er, where no such improper moti)e or purpose is a!!eged,

and e)en though so a!!eged, it is not pro)ed by the corporation, then there is no )a!id reason to

deny the reuested inspection.

. n the instant case, howe)er, the #ourt finds that the denia! of inspection was predicated

on the pending ci)i! case against the pouses y.

4. y "iong hiou, et a!. did not ma9e any a!!egation that the person demanding to e=amineand copy e=cerpts from the corporations records and minutes has improper!y used any

information secured through any prior e=amination of the records or minutes of such corporation

or of any other corporation, or was not acting in good faith or for a !egitimate purpose in ma9ing

his demand. nstead, they mere!y reiterated the pendency of the ci)i! case. "here being no

a!!egation of improper moti)e, and it being undisputed that y "iong hiou, et a!. denied y

#him and Fe!icidad #han ys reuest for inspection, the #ourt ru!es and so ho!ds that the 'OJ

erred in dismissing the crimina! charge for )io!ation of ection ?4 in re!ation to ection 144 of

the #orporation #ode.

12


13/24

13

VII. GR 188"20 Ro/ue v. ienza $e% 2!, 2010

Facts: 1. On June 1, the @&, through its then 7ationa! &resident Jose 3nse!mo #adiB

$#adiB%, fi!ed with the Office of the #ity ayor of ani!a a !etter app!ication for a permit to ra!!yat the foot of endio!a @ridge on June 22, 200> from 2:0 p.m. to , 200> a!!owing the @& to stage a ra!!y on

gi)en date but indicated therein &!aBa iranda as the )enue, instead of endio!a @ridge, which

permit the @& recei)ed on June 1(, 200>.

. 3ggrie)ed, petitioners fi!ed on June 21, 200> before the #ourt of 3ppea!s a petition for

certiorari doc9eted as #3-/.. & 7o. (4(4(. "he #ourt, by eso!utions of Ju!y 2>, 200>,

3ugust 0, 200> and 7o)ember 20, 200>, respecti)e!y, denied the petition for being moot and

academic, denied the re!ief that the petition be heard on the merits in )iew of the pendency of

#3-/.. & 7o. (4(4(, and denied the motion for reconsideration.

4. "he ra!!y pushed through on June 22, 200> at endio!a @ridge, after #adiB discussed

with &6upt. 3rturo &ag!inawan whose contingent from the ani!a &o!ice 'istrict $&'% ear!ier

barred petitioners from proceeding thereto. &etitioners a!!ege that the participants )o!untari!y

dispersed after the peacefu! conduct of the program.


14/24

14

substanti)e e)i! which warrants the denia! or modification of the permit and mere!y mandates

that the action ta9en sha!! be in writing and sha!! be ser)ed on respondent within 24 hours. "he

appe!!ate court went on to ho!d that respondent is authoriBed to regu!ate the e=ercise of the

freedom of e=pression and of pub!ic assemb!y which are not abso!ute, and that the cha!!enged

permit is consistent with &!aBa irandas designation as a freedom par9 where protest ra!!ies are

a!!owed without permit.

14


15/24

15

VIII. GR1610+5 Jo#eCon#ing v. People July 15, 2013

Facts: 1. &etitioner negotiated with and obtained for himse!f and his mother, #eci!ia de !a #ruB

$de !a #ruB% )arious !oans tota!ing &18,000,000.00 from nicapita! nc. $nicapita!%. "he !oanswere secured by a rea! estate mortgage constituted on a parce! of !and $property% co)ered by

"ransfer #ertificate of "it!e $"#"% 7o. "->8?


16/24

16

adudged free from crimina! !iabi!ity. 3n agent or any person may be he!d !iab!e for conspiring to

fa!sify pub!ic documents. Aence, the determination of the issue in)o!)ed in #i)i! #ase 7o. #3

1?


17/24

17

IX. GR 15"186 ap v Ca%ale# June 5, 200"

Facts: 1. &etitioner Jesse +. +ap and his spouse @essie +ap are engaged in the rea! estate

business through their company &rimetown &roperty /roup. ometime in 1((>, petitionerpurchased se)era! rea! properties from a certain C)e!yn "e $C)e!yn%. n consideration of said

purchases, petitioner issued se)era! @an9 of the &hi!ippine s!ands $@&% postdated chec9s to

C)e!yn. "hereafter, spouses Or!ando and ergy! irabueno and spouses #har!ie and Jo)ita

'ima!anta, rediscounted the chec9s from C)e!yn.

2."he first few chec9s were honored by the ban9, but in the ear!y part of 1((?, when the

remaining chec9s were deposited with the drawee ban9, they were dishonored for the reason that

the 3ccount is #!osed.'emands were made by pouses irabueno and pouses 'ima!anta to

the petitioner to ma9e good the chec9s. 'espite this, howe)er, the !atter fai!ed to pay the amounts

represented by the said chec9s.

. On 'ecember 8, 1((?, pouses irabueno fi!ed a ci)i! action for co!!ection of sum of

money, damages and attorneyPs fee with prayer for the issuance of a writ of pre!iminary

attachment against petitioner before the egiona! "ria! #ourt $"#% of /enera! antos #ity,

doc9eted as #i)i! #ase 7o. >21.

4. ubseuent!y, on )arious dates, the Office of the #ity &rosecutor of /enera! antos #ity

fi!ed se)era! informations for )io!ation of @atas &ambansa @i!ang $@.&. @!g.% 22 against the

petitioner with the unicipa! "ria! #ourt in #ities $"##%, /enera! antos #ity.


18/24

18

3. n the aforementioned ci)i! actions, e)en if petitioner is dec!ared not !iab!e for the

payment of the )a!ue of the chec9s and damages, he cannot be adudged free from crimina!

!iabi!ity for )io!ation of @.&. @!g. 22. "he mere issuance of worth!ess chec9s with 9now!edge of

the insufficiency of funds to support the chec9s is in itse!f an offense.

4. "he mere act of issuing a worth!ess chec9 - whether as a deposit, as a guarantee or e)enas e)idence of pre-e=isting debt - is ma!um prohibitum. "o determine the reason for which

chec9s are issued, or the terms and conditions for their issuance, wi!! great!y erode the faith the

pub!ic reposes in the stabi!ity and commercia! )a!ue of chec9s as currency substitutes, and bring

about ha)oc in trade and in ban9ing communities. o what the !aw punishes is the issuance of a

bouncing chec9 and not the purpose for which it was issued or the terms and conditions re!ating

to its issuance. "he mere act of issuing a worth!ess chec9 is ma!um prohibitum.

5. t is c!ear that the determination of the issues in)o!)ed in #i)i! #ase 7os. >21 and >28

for co!!ection of sum of money and damages is irre!e)ant to the gui!t or innocence of the

petitioner in the crimina! cases for )io!ation of @.&. @!g. 22.

18


19/24

19

X. GR 18!861 (reaor4 v. Janiola June 30, 200" ela#*o,

Jr., J.

Facts: 1. On October 18, 2004, petitioner, through its &resident, oberto . #oncepcion, andLice-&resident for Finance and ar9eting, 7ormandy &. 3mora, fi!ed a #omp!aint 3ffida)it

dated October


20/24

20

. n the instant case, the phrase, pre)ious!y instituted, was inserted to ua!ify the nature

of the ci)i! action in)o!)ed in a preudicia! uestion in re!ation to the crimina! action. "his

interpretation is further buttressed by the insertion of subseuent direct!y before the term

crimina! action. "here is no other !ogica! e=p!anation for the amendments e=cept to ua!ify the

re!ationship of the ci)i! and crimina! actions, that the ci)i! action must precede the crimina!

action.

4. "he fi!ing of the ci)i! action and the subseuent mo)e to suspend the crimina!

proceedings by reason of the presence of a preudicia! uestion were a mere afterthought and

instituted to de!ay the crimina! proceedings.

. t must be emphasiBed that the gra)amen of the offense charge is the issuance of a bad

chec9. "he purpose for which the chec9 was issued, the terms and conditions re!ating to its

issuance, or any agreement surrounding such issuance are irre!e)ant to the prosecution and

con)iction of petitioner. "o determine the reason for which chec9s are issued, or the terms and

conditions for their issuance, wi!! great!y erode the faith the pub!ic reposes in the stabi!ity and

commercia! )a!ue of chec9s as currency substitutes, and bring ha)oc in trade and in ban9ing

communities. "he c!ear intention of the framers of @.&. 22 is to ma9e the mere act of issuing aworth!ess chec9 ma!um prohibitum.

?. Leri!y, e)en if the tria! court in the ci)i! case dec!ares that the construction agreement

between the parties is )oid for !ac9 of consideration, this wou!d not affect the prosecution of

pri)ate respondent in the crimina! case. "he fact of the matter is that pri)ate respondent indeed

issued chec9s which were subseuent!y dishonored for insufficient funds. t is this fact that is

subect of prosecution under @& 22.

20


21/24

21

XI. G.R. No. 188+6+ July 2!, 2013 P'R', J.:

SP)S'S RG)N N( $7)R( G(9N) )s.SN MG'7 C)RP)R9)N,

Facts: 1. &etitioner pouses 3rgo)an /aditano $3rgo)an% and F!orida /adiano $F!orida%, who

were engaged in the business of buying and se!!ing beer and softdrin9s products, purchased beerproducts from an igue! #orporation $#% in the amount of &28.

4. # fi!ed with the 'epartment of Justice $'OJ% a petition for re)iew cha!!enging the

eso!utions of the Office of the &rosecutor. n a eso!ution dated June 2004, the 'OJdismissed the petition. # fi!ed a motion for reconsideration, which the 'OJ ecretary denied.


22/24

22

. "he materia! facts surrounding the ci)i! case bear no re!ation to the crimina! in)estigation

being conducted by the prosecutor. "he preudicia! uestion in the ci)i! case in)o!)es the

dishonor of another chec9. # is not pri)y to the nature of the a!!eged materia!!y a!tered chec9!eading to its dishonor and the e)entua! garnishment of petitioners sa)ings account. "he source

of the funds of petitioners sa)ings account is no !onger #s concern. "he matter is between

petitioners and 3sia "rust @an9. On the other hand, the issue in the pre!iminary in)estigation iswhether petitioners issued a bad chec9 to # for the payment of beer products.

4. C)en if the tria! court in the ci)i! case dec!ares 3sia "rust @an9 !iab!e for the un!awfu!

garnishment of petitioners sa)ings account, petitioners cannot be automatica!!y adudged free

from crimina! !iabi!ity for )io!ation of @atas &ambansa @!g. 22, because the mere issuance ofworth!ess chec9s with 9now!edge of the insufficiency of funds to support the chec9s is in itse!f

the offense.

22


23/24

23

XII. G.R. No. 1+3183 Nove%er 18, 2013 :R)N, J.:

SCM)R' 'N9R'S C)RP)R9)N an; SP)S'S SM)N (. P N( 7'NG

7'NG P, )s. M'9R)P)79N :N< N( 9RS9 C)MPN

$a*#= 1. i=teen years ago $or sometime in 1((?%, ycamore and the spouses &aB obtained fromrespondent etropo!itan @an9 and "rust #ompany $etroban9% a credit !ine

of &180,000,000.00, secured by 10 rea! estate mortgages4o)er ycamores 11 parce!s of

!and,ycamore and the spouses &aB withdrew from thecredit !ine the tota! amount of &>(4,(14.2>, e)idenced by 1 promissory notes.?

2.@ecause the petitioners fai!ed to pay their !oan ob!igations and for )io!ations of the terms

and conditions of their 1 promissory notes, etroban9 instituted e=traudicia! forec!osure

proceedings o)er the si= rea! estate mortgages.

. but the sa!e did not ta9e p!ace because ycamore and the spouses &aB as9ed for

postponements.

4. etroban9 subseuent!y restructured ycamore and the spouses &aBs !oan, resu!ting in the

issuance of one promissory note denominated as &7 7o. ?22 ?>8>4.(2


24/24

24

etroban9 thus again went to the #3 on a petition for certiorari under u!e >

Crimpro Digests PQ

Documents

Transcript of Crimpro Digests PQ