Case 9: SPOUSES ARGOVAN AND FLORIDA GADITANO vs.

SAN MIGUEL
CORPORATION | GR No. 188767 |
July 24, 2013 | PEREZ, J.
Prejudicial Question
Doctrine (Simplified Take away):

Prejudicial Question: A prejudicial question generally comes into play in a situation where a civil
action and a criminal action are both pending and there exists in the former an issue which must
be preemptively resolved before the latter may proceed, because however the issue raised in the
civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the
accused in the criminal case. The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid
two conflicting decisions.

Section 7. Elements of a 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.

Facts: The subject of the civil case is the garnishment by Asia Trust Bank of petitioner’s savings
account. Based on the petitioners' account, they deposited the check given to them by Fatima in
their savings account. The amount of said check was initially credited to petitioners’ savings
account but the Fatima check was later on dishonored because there was an alleged alteration in
the name of the payee. As a result, the bank debited the amount of the check from petitioners’
savings account. Now, petitioners seek to persuade us that had it not been for the unlawful
garnishment, the funds in their savings account would have been sufficient to cover a check they
issued in favor of SMC.

Issue: WON that the resolution or the issue raised in the civil action is determinative of the guilt
or innocence of the accused in the criminal investigation against them.

Ruling: NO. There is no necessity that the civil case be determined first before taking up the
criminal complaints. The material facts surrounding the civil case bear no relation to the criminal
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 alleged materially altered
check leading to its dishonor and the eventual garnishment of petitioners’ savings account. The
source of the funds of petitioners’ savings account is no longer SMC’s concern. The matter is
between petitioners and Asia Trust Bank. On the other hand, the issue in the preliminary
investigation is whether petitioners issued a bad check to SMC for the payment of beer products.