Gosiaco vs Ching - amount to be recovered was a loan to ASB AND NOT TO

 Jaime Gosiaco, as an investmednt, granted a loan to ASB Holdings CHING

for a period of 48 days with a 10.5% interest or 112,000 - Roxas testimony: checks issued by Ching were for and in
 ASB issued 2 checks to cover the loan and the interest drawn behalf of ASB
against DBS Bank Makati - -ASB CANNOT BE IMPLEADED IN A BP 22 CASE SINCE IT'S
 Gosiaco went to DBS San Juan branch to deposit the checks upon NOT A NATURAL PERSON
maturity but they were DISHONORED due to a STOP PAYMENT - -Roxas under PI
ORDER and INSUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS - -no need to pierce corp veil since no requisites were
 Gosiaco informed ASB 2x about the dishonor and DEMANDED present
REPLACEMENT CHECKS or RETURN OF THE MONEY but to no avail
- hence a complaint for violation of BP 22 was filed with MTC  -appeal to SC via rule 45
San Juan - -WON a corporate officer who signed a bouncing check is
 Ching was arraigned but Casta remained at large civilly liable under BP 22
 Ching: - -WON ASB can be impleaded in a BP 22 case
- denied liability, mere employee of ASB - -WON there's a basis to pierce the corporate veil of ASB
- no knowledge how much money ASB had in the banks
- responsibility to check how much was with other dept  Held: DENIED, without prejudice to the right of petitioner Jaime U.
 Gosiaco moved to implead ASB and its President Roxas but was Gosiaco to pursue an independent civil action against ASB Holdings
denied because case had already been submitted for final decision Inc. for the amount of the subject checks
 -BP 22, Section 1 says:
 MTC: Ching ACQUITTED of criminal liability but NOT ABSOLVED from - -Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or
civil liability entity, the person or persons, who actually signed the check
- as a corporate officer of ASB, she is CIVILLY LIABLE SINCE in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act.
SHE WAS A SIGNATORY TO THE CHECKS  -punishes the act of making and issuing bouncing checks. It is the
act itself of issuing the checks which is considered malum
 both parties appealed ot the RTC prohibitum, covers all types of checks.
- Gosiaco: MTC failed to hold ASB and Roxas jointly or  -a corporate officer who issues a worthless check in the corporate
severally liable with Ching name he may be held personally liable and he cannot shield himself
- Ching: no civil liability because they were contractual from liability from his own acts on the ground that it was a
obligations of ASB corporate act and not his personal act
 -HOWEVER, THE GENERAL RULE IS: a corporate officer who issues a
 RTC: CHING NO CIVIL LIABILITY (obligation fell squarely on ASB), but bouncing corporate check can only be held civilly liable when he is
still DENIED the motion to implead ASB and Roxas convicted
 -Bautista v. Auto Plus Traders Inc: civil liability of a corporate officer
 Gosiaco appeal to CA: RTC ERRED IN ABSOLVING CHING and in a B.P. Blg. 22 case is extinguished with the criminal liability
upholding to not implead ASB and Roxas and in refusing to pierce  -hence, by principle of stare decisis, we follow this precedent and
the corporate veil of ASB and hold Roxas liable AFFIRM THE DISCHARGE OF CHING OF ANY CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING
FROM THE BP 22 CASE FILED AGAINST HER, ON ACCOUNT OF HER
 CA: RTC DECISION AFFIRMED ACQUITTAL IN THE CRIMINAL CHARGE
  -WHAT THE RULES PROHIBIT IS THE RESERVATION OF A SEPARATE
 -however, records clearly show that ASB is civilly obligated to CIVIL ACTION AGAINST THE NATURAL PERSON CHARGED WITH THE
petitioner BP 22 VIOLATION, including such corporate officer who had signed
 -Gosiaco has been proceeding from the premise that he is unable to the bounced check
file a separate civil action against ASB to recover amounts- which is  -B.P. Blg. 22 imposes a distinct civil liability on the signatory of the
why he's been trying to implead ASB as a defendant in the BP 22 check which is distinct from the civil liability of the corporation for
case, even if the case is criminal in nature the amount represented from the check.
- -anchored on Rule 111, Section 1—Institution of criminal - -The civil liability attaching to the signatory arises from the
and civil action wrongful act of signing the check despite the insufficiency of
 - funds in the account, while the civil liability attaching to the
 (b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall corporation is itself the very obligation covered by the
be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation check or the consideration for its execution.
to file such civil action separately shall be allowed. - -Yet these civil liabilities are mistaken to be indistinct. The
confusion is traceable to the singularity of the amount of
 Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the each.
offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount  -BP 22 itself fused this criminal liability of the signer of the check in
of the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual behalf of the corp with the corresponding civil liability of the corp
damages claimed. Where the complainant or information also seeks itself BY ALLOWING THE COMPLAINANT TO RECOVER SUCH CIVIL
to recover liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary LIABILITY NOT FROM THE CORP BUT FROM THE PERSON WHO
damages, the offended party shall pay the filing fees based on the SIGNED THE CHECK
amounts alleged therein. If the amounts are not so alleged but any  -the civil action that is impliedly instituted in the B.P. Blg. 22 action
of these damages are subsequently awarded by the court, the filing is only the civil liability of the signatory, and not that of the
fees based on the amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on corporation itself, the distinctness of the cause of action against the
the judgment. signatory and that against the corporation is rendered beyond
dispute
 -COURT DISAGREES. Nowhere in B.P. Blg. 22 is it provided that a
juridical person may be impleaded as an accused or defendant in  -prior to the ROC amendments: it was permissible to pursue
the prosecution for violations of that law, even in the litigation of criminal liability against the signatory while going after the
the civil aspect thereof corporation itself for the civil liability
- -statutory construction: penal laws strictly construed in
favor of the accused  -In the B.P. Blg. 22 case: what the trial court should determine
whether or not the signatory had signed the check with knowledge
 -HOWEVER, Gosiaco can't be prevented from recovering amounts of the insufficiency of funds or credit in the bank account,
due and demandable to him.  -in the civil case: The trial court should ascertain whether or not the
 -rules of procedure can't defeat a substantive right obligation itself
 -but technically, nothing in Section 1(b) of Rule 111 prohibits the  is valid and demandable.
RESERVATION OF A SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION AGAINST THE  -The litigation of both questions could, in theory, proceed
JURIDICAL PERSON ON WHOSE BEHALF THE CHECK WAS ISSUED independently and simultaneously without being ultimately
conclusive on one or the other.
  -Let a copy of this Decision be REFERRED to the Committee on
 -also, if the employee has no sufficient funds to cover the debt, the Revision of the Rules for the formulation of the formal rules of
corporation can't be held subsidiarily liable procedure to govern the civil action for the recovery of the amount
- -the Revised Penal Code imposes subsidiary civil liability to covered by the check against the juridical person which issued it.
corporations for criminal acts engaged in by their
employees in the discharge of their duties, said subsidiary
liability applies only to felonies, and not to crimes penalized KRIZIA KATRINA TY-DE ZUZUARREGUI vs. Villarosa and Torres-Ty
by special laws such as B.P. Blg. 22  Katrina's aunt, Rosemary Torres Ty-Rasekhi, sister of her late father
- -nothing in B.P. Blg. 22 imposes such subsidiary liability to Alexander Torres Ty filed for the issuance of letters of admin for the
the corporation in whose name the check is actually issued estate of Katrina's grandmother, Bella Torres before RTC Pasig
 -Clearly then, should the check signatory be unable to pay the  Katrina opposed but both parties later had a compromise
obligation incurred by the corporation, the complainant would be agreement which the RTC later approved
bereft of remedy unless the right of action to collect on the liability  Peter Torres Ty (Peter) and Catherine Torres Ty-Chavez (Catherine),
of the corporation is recognized Rosemary's siblings, filed with the CA a petition to annul judgment
approving the compromise agreement
 -concerns: o that they also biological children of Bella and that they were
- -double recovery: BP 22 case sa the employee and civil case also entitled to inherit from her
sa corp o that no agreement was reached when they were first trying
 -best we refer the matter to the Committee on to settle the estate amongst them
Rules for the formulation of proper guidelines to o that Rosemary wanted to get a bigger share
prevent that possibility o that they were not aware that Rosemary filed a petition for
- -payment of filing fees in both the B.P. Blg. 22 case and the the issuance of letters of admin and that a CA was approved
civil action against the corporation by Pasig RTC
 -we see no evil or cause for distress if the plaintiff o that Rosemary's petition and CA did not disclose that Peter,
were made to pay filing fees based on the amount Catherine and Fannie were also Bella's heirs
of the check in both the B.P. Blg. 22 case and the  Katrina and Rosemary answered
civil action o that the 3 siblings were purchased from third persons who
 -the plaintiff therein made the deliberate option to represented to Bella and the latter’s common-law husband,
file two separate cases, even if the recovery of the Alejandro Ty, that they were abandoned children
amounts of the check against the corporation could o that this was known within the family circle, but was not
evidently be pursued through the civil action alone. disclosed to the 3
 -but in this case, CONSIDERING THE PREVIOUS o that Alejandro and Bella did not legally adopt them; hence,
LEGAL CONFUSION ON WON HE WAS AUTHORIZED they were never conferred the rights of legitimate children
TO FILED THE CIVIL CASE AGAINST ASB, GOSIACO
SHOULD BE EXEMPTED FROM PAYING THE FILING  while the action for annulment was pending before the CA, Fannie
FEES BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF THE CHECKS IF HE filed a complaint for falsification and perjury against petitioner and
FILES A CASE AGAINST ASB Rosemary
 -he shouldn't be barred by prescription either-- to
run from the date of finality of this decision
 o falsely and maliciously stated in the pertinent pleadings o MeTC no GAD
filed before the RTC of Pasig City that the late Bella had only  CA: certification of non-forum shopping was signed only by
two (2) heirs, namely the two (2) of them petitioner's counsel and not by her

 Katrina and Rosemary filed joint motion to suspend the preliminary  Issues
investigation for perjury on the ground of a pending prejudicial  WON CA erred in dismissing appeal
question before the Court of Appeals  WON CA erred in not nullifying order of RTC Judge
o that the issue of whether Peter, Catherine, and Fannie are
related to Bella and therefore legal heirs of the latter was  Held:
pending before the Court of Appeals  A certification against forum shopping signed by counsel is a
o investigating prosecutor denied the joint motion and found defective certification that is equivalent to non-compliance with the
probable cause against petitioner and Rosemary for two (2) requirement and constitutes a valid cause for the dismissal of the
counts each of falsification of public documents petition.
o prosecutor held that the issue before the Court of Appeals  exceptions:
is the validity of the compromise agreement which is not o interest of substantial justice
determinative of the criminal case which involves the o if signed only by counsel and duly informed the court of
liability of petitioner and Rosemary for falsification, pending cases with another court
allegedly for willfully making the false statements in the  this case: there was subsequent compliance; submitted together
opposition to the petition for letters of administration and with MR
in the subsequent compromise agreement filed before the  sufficient compliance especially in view of the merits of the case,
RTC of Pasig City. which may be considered as a special circumstance or a compelling
reason that would justify tempering the hard consequence of the
 3 informations were filed against Katrina and Rosemary for perjury procedural requirement on non-forum shopping
was filed with Makati MeTC
 Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, a
 Katrina filed a petition for review with the DOJ and a motion to criminal action may be suspended upon the pendency of a
defer proceedings with the MeTC on the ground of pending appeal prejudicial question in a civil action, to wit:
before the DOJ  SEC. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. - A petition for
 Kat and Rosemary also filed with the MeTC separate motions to suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a
suspend proceedings on the ground of prejudicial question prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the
 all were denied prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation.
o MeTC agreed with the prosecutor When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the
petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any
 Kat filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with Makati RTC time before the prosecution rests.
 RTC: denied, MR also denied  requisites:
o no prejudicial question: quantum of evidence in the civil o civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon
action for annulment of judgment differs from the quantum which the criminal prosecution would be based
of evidence required in the criminal action for falsification
of public documents
 o resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the Manebo vs Acosta
guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be  early evening, Bernadette Dimatulac and Flordeliza Bagasa were
determined seated beside each other on a papag watching TV inside the church
o jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another of the Kaibigan Foundation
tribunal  SPO1 Roel Acosta, with an unidentified male companion, both with
 no prejudicial question if issue in civil actino will not determine the short firearms entered the church, approached the 2 girls and at an
criminal responsibility of the accued in the criminal action based on arm's length, SHOT THE DIMATULAC SEVERAL TIMES ON THE HEAD
the same facts AND BODY CAUSING HER IMMEDIATE DEATH
 no prejudicial question if there's no necessity that the civil case be  2 men immediately boarded an owner jeep without a plate number
determined first before taking up the criminal case and left: to San Leonardo
 no prejudicial question if both cases can proceed independently of  Sardia, bystander, saw the 2 men, the jeep and recognized the
each other driver as Numeriano Sapiandante, the Barangay Capt of San
Leonardo, Nueva Ecija
 issue of annulment case with CA: principally for the determination  complaint for murder was filed by SISTER of Dimatulac, Nieva
of the validity of the compromise agreement which did not include Manebo, against Acosta and Sapiandante before the Special Action
Peter, Catherine, and Fannie as heirs of Bella. Peter, Catherine, and Unit (SAU) of the NBI
Fannie presented evidence to prove that they are also biological  SAU recommended the filing murder case against Acosta,
children of Bella and Alejandro Sapiandante and John Doe was referred to the Chief State
Prosecutor (OCSP), DOJ for preliminary investigation
 issue of criminal case: whether petitioner committed falsification of  respondents, in turn, filed directly with the DOJ a COUNTER-
public documents in executing pleadings containing untruthful CHARGE OF PERJURY, OFFERING FALSE WITNESS AND VIOLATION
statements that she and Rosemary were the only legal heirs of Bella OF PD 1829 against complainants
o Acosta: denied, on special assignment in San Leonardo, no
 RESULT OF CIVIL CASE WILL DETERMINE THE INNOCENCE OR GUILT reason for him to kill, Bagasan's description did not fit his
OF KATRINA IN CRIMINAL CASES FOR FALSIFICATION physical attributes, substitution of witness (person
 if it is finally adjudged in the civil case that they are not biological identified to be beside victim when shot is Liza Gragasan
children of the late Bella and consequently not entitled to a share in and not Flordeliza Bagasan, presented affidavits of his
her estate as heirs, there is no more basis to proceed with the witnesses that he was in San Leonardo
criminal cases against petitioner who could not have committed o Sapiadante: denied driving get-away vehicle, he did not
falsification in her pleadings know how to drive nor was he a holder of a driver's license,
that Sardia had a grudge against him because of the
dismissal of case filed by Sardia against him, and that Acosta
never testified for him in another case
 State prosecutor Abad issued a joint resolution, approved by Chief
State Prosecutor recommending the filing of the murder charges
and the dismissal of the counter-charge
 same day, info was filed with the RTC Cabanatuan City
 March 23, 2001: respondents filed appeal with the DOJ
 meanwhile the case was transferred to Manila RTC and February 23, respondents' counsel until after the resolution of the
2003: alias warrants of arrest were issued petition filed before the CA.
 June 27: DOJ Secretary issued a resolution  CA rendered the assailed Decision dismissing the petition for lack of
o appealed resolution is hereby REVERSED. The Chief State merit
Prosecutor is directed to move for the withdrawal of the o CA said that the OP committed no error in affirming the
information filed against respondents and to report the resolution of the DOJ Secretary; that courts will not
action taken hereon within ten (10) days from receipt interfere in the conduct of preliminary investigations and
hereof leave to the investigating prosecutor a sufficient latitude of
o alibi inherently weak, but assumed strength and discretion in the determination of what constitutes
significance because complainants failed to adduce the sufficient evidence as will establish probable cause for the
required quantum of proof filing of information against the offender
o that Gragasan was beside the victim but was not able to
respond regarding the shooting incident
o that after 4 months, a certain Flordeliza comes forth,
presented affidavit and alleged that she was seated beside
the victim and witnessed the actual shooting
o Bagasan's description of assailant did not fit the physical
attributes of Acosta
o that Manebo only alleged that Acosta only changed his
appearance to avoid being recognized
o Bagasan's presence at the crime scene when the crime was
being committed is highly suspect. Bagasan's delayed
testimony coupled with an erroneous description, casts a
thick cloud of doubt on her credibility
o Sardia was not among those mentioned in the police report
and his testimony was likewise belatedly executed. Sardia's
testimony may also not be given credence with respect to
respondent Acosta since he did not witness the actual
shooting of the victim.
 prosecutor filed a Motion to Withdraw the Information
 petitioner filed with the OP, which dismissed the appeal and
AFFIRMED THE RESOLUTION OF THE DOJ SECRETARY
 petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 43 with the CA
 Meanwhile, the RTC of Manila resolved to suspend the resolution
on the motion to withdraw
o respondents were still at large and had not been prejudiced
by the the petition for filing with the CA anyway
o ruled for the suspension of the implementation of the
warrants of arrest for respondents as moved by the