University of the Philippines College of Law

NSM, 2-D

Topic Prejudicial Question

Case No. G.R. No. 141624, 2004
Case Name People v. Delizo
Ponente Chico-Nazario

RELEVANT FACTS
 Arsenio Ng filed criminal complaint for estafa against Delizo with Office of City Prosecutor of
Mandaluyong City.
 October 10, 1997: First Asst City Prosec signed an Information charging Delizo with estafa, for
misapplying and converting the amount of 12M for his own personal use and benefit, as President and
chariman of Mediserv Inc.
 (Sec and Exchange Com) SEC CASE 1: October 23, 1997: Prior to the filing of the info, however,
Ambulatory Health Care Institute Inc. (AHCII) or Clinica Manila (CM) and the Health Check Inc (HCI) filed
a complaint with the SEC against Delizo and a certain John Doe for damages wherein Delizo and the
companion arrived in CM Office at SM Megamall, and announced that he was still the president, and
rallied the officers and employees against the newly elected board of directors.
o Despite guards asking Delizo to leave, they refused.
o Delizo then wrote the China Banking Corp, depository of CM, requesting it not to honor any
change in the authorized signatories for CM, and appended a falsified General Information
Sheet (GIS) to show that he was still a member of the board of directors and president of CM.
 SEC CASE 2: AHCII, Mediserv, Inc., and Delizo, filed a complaint with SEC against Ng, Salvador etc.,
alleging that:
 They had been stockholders of AHCII since Aug 1995
 Had majority of the outstanding capital stock (52,37% and 6.08%)
 Delizo was the incumbent chairman of the BoD and president of AHCII
 No quorum during stockholders meeting, said meeting where a new set of board of
directors and officers were, elected was in violation of the by-laws of AHCII and illegal.
 CIVIL CASE: Mediserv, represented by Delizo, filed a civil case complaint with RTC against China Banking
Corp, Landheights Dev Corp, Notary Public Ignacio and Register of Deeds for City of Manila, where it was
alleged that MI received a loan from the bank. They prayed for TRO to enjoin the selling of their
property in a public action.
 CRIM CASE: Dec. 3, 1997: The info for estafa was filed with RTC of Mandaluyong, where the TC ordered
issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment on a bond.
o Dec. 23, 1998: Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the order with a prayer for the
suspension of the proceedings on the ground of the existence of a prejudicial question
o January 13, 1998: TC issued order denying motion to suspend proceedings because Ng was not a
stockholder of MI, hence, pendency of the 2 SEC cases was not a ground for the suspension of
the case.
 CA: set aside the writ of attachment set aside, R Judge of RTC directed to suspend proceedings of the
crim Case, considering the existence of a prejudicial question in SEC Case and Civil Case.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
 University of the Philippines College of Law
NSM, 2-D

W/N there exists a prejudicial NO, transaction subject of civil case is the loan, while the criminal case is the
question 12M.

(Sec 5 and 6, Rule 111)

 If issues raised in the civil action are so similar or intimately related to
those in the criminal case such that the resolution of the said issues in
the civil case are determinative of the juris et de jure of the guilt or
innocence of the accused, the proceedings of the criminal shall be
suspended and the civil action shall proceed until judgment on its
merits.
 PREJUDICIAL QUESTION: (Sec 5, Rule 111)
o ELEMENTS:
 (1) The civil action involves an issue similar or
intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal
action
 (2) resolution of such issue determines whether or
not the criminal action may proceed
o ALSO no prejudicial question if civil and criminal action can
proceed independently of each other.
o RATIONALE: To avoid 2 conflicting decisions.
 In this case:
o CRIM CASE: Transaction subject of the criminal case for
estafa is the receipt of P12,000,000 from Ng which was
intended for the purchase of 120,000 shares of stocks of MI.
R used the money for his personal benefit instead of
purchasing the said share for Ng.
o CIVIL CASE: the transaction subject of the civil case is the loan
of MI from China Banking Corp, payment of which is secured
by a real estate mortgage. Delizo’s agreement with Ng for
purchase of the 120M shares of stocks in the MI, and alleged
misappropriation is not the subject matter of the civil case.
 NG is not even a party thereto, neither was he privy
to said transaction between Delizo and MI, and
China Banking Corp.
 OUTCOME OF CIVIL CASE IS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF
GUILT/INNOCENCE OF DELIZO IN THE CRIMINAL
CASE. CA ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION.
o SEC CASE: event or occurrence was Delizo’s refusal to vacate
the office of the president and insists on performing the
duties despite his alleged ouster from the position. Neither
Ng nor MI were parties in the said case.
 The amount of 12M that Delizo misused for his own
benefit, which was supposed to be Ngs investment in
the MI, was NOT THE SUBJECT of SEC Case.
 There is even no showing that Ng claimed to be a
stockholder of MI.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
NSM, 2-D

 Issues in the SEC case are not determinative of guilt or innocence of

Delizo in criminal case for Estafa.
o Whether SEC declares said meetings and elections void will
not result in conviction or acquittal of Delizo for Estafa for
swindling Ng of 12M.
o SEC case involves intra-corporate disputes, and are bare of
any allegations to the alleged 12M received by Ng and
intended for purchase of 120k shares of stock.

RULING

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE. The Orders of
the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City dated December 18, 1998 and February 1, 1999 are REINSTATED.
No costs.

SEPARATE OPINIONS

NOTES