Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 157 views

    Teodera Reyes v. Ettore Rossi

    Uploaded by

    楊瑪莉
    Teodera Reyes and Advanced Foundation Construction Systems executed a deed for Reyes to purchase equipment for 10 million pesos, with 3 million as downpayment and the remaining balance to be paid through post-dated checks. Reyes issued nine post-dated checks that were dishonored. Reyes filed a civil case for rescission of contract while Rossi filed criminal charges for estafa and violating the Bouncing Checks Law. The Supreme Court ruled that the civil case was not prejudicial to the criminal case as its resolution would not determine Reyes' criminal liability, as the checks were dishonored when the contract was still binding.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Teodera Reyes v. Ettore Rossi

    Uploaded by

    楊瑪莉
    157 views2 pages
    Teodera Reyes and Advanced Foundation Construction Systems executed a deed for Reyes to purchase equipment for 10 million pesos, with 3 million as downpayment and the remaining balance to be paid through post-dated checks. Reyes issued nine post-dated checks that were dishonored. Reyes filed a civil case for rescission of contract while Rossi filed criminal charges for estafa and violating the Bouncing Checks Law. The Supreme Court ruled that the civil case was not prejudicial to the criminal case as its resolution would not determine Reyes' criminal liability, as the checks were dishonored when the contract was still binding.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Teodera Reyes v. Ettore Rossi.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Teodera Reyes and Advanced Foundation Construction Systems executed a deed for Reyes to purchase equipment for 10 million pesos, with 3 million as downpayment and the remaining balance to be paid through post-dated checks. Reyes issued nine post-dated checks that were dishonored. Reyes filed a civil case for rescission of contract while Rossi filed criminal charges for estafa and violating the Bouncing Checks Law. The Supreme Court ruled that the civil case was not prejudicial to the criminal case as its resolution would not determine Reyes' criminal liability, as the checks were dishonored when the contract was still binding.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    157 views2 pages

    Teodera Reyes v. Ettore Rossi

    Uploaded by

    楊瑪莉
    Teodera Reyes and Advanced Foundation Construction Systems executed a deed for Reyes to purchase equipment for 10 million pesos, with 3 million as downpayment and the remaining balance to be paid through post-dated checks. Reyes issued nine post-dated checks that were dishonored. Reyes filed a civil case for rescission of contract while Rossi filed criminal charges for estafa and violating the Bouncing Checks Law. The Supreme Court ruled that the civil case was not prejudicial to the criminal case as its resolution would not determine Reyes' criminal liability, as the checks were dishonored when the contract was still binding.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Teodera Reyes v.

    Ettore Rossi
    G.R. No. 159823 February 18, 2013

    Facts:

    On October 31, 1997, petitioner Reyes and Advanced Foundation Construction Systems,
    represented• by its Executive Project Director, respondent Rossi, executed a deed of conditional
    sale involving the purchase by Reyes of equipment consisting of a Warman Dredging Pump HY
    300A worth P10,000,000.00. The parties agreed that Reyes would pay the 3,000,000
    downpayment while the balance of 7,000,000 would be paid through 4 post-dated checks. Reyes
    requested restructuring of the obligation by replacing the 4 post-dated checks to 9 post-dated
    checks. Reyes issued and delivered nine postdated checks. Rossi deposited several checks but
    the checks were dishonored. Reyes commenced an action for rescission of contract and
    damages. On the other hand, Rossi charged Reyes with five counts of estafa and five counts of
    violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati for the
    dishonor of Checks.

    Reyes argued that the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati should suspend the proceedings
    because of the pendency in the RTC of the civil action for rescission of contract that posed a
    prejudicial question as to the criminal proceedings.

    Issue: Whether the civil action for rescission of contract is prejudicial to the criminal
    proceedings against Reyes?

    Ruling: The civil action is not prejudicial to the criminal proceedings. 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 that must first be determined before the latter
    may proceed, because howsoever 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 for the suspension on the ground of a prejudicial question is to avoid conflicting
    decisions.

    Two elements that must concur in order for a civil case to be considered a prejudicial question
    are expressly stated in Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit:

    (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. If,
    after trial on the merits in the civil action, Advanced Foundation would be found to have
    committed material breach as to warrant the rescission of the contract, such result would not
    necessarily mean that Reyes would be absolved of the criminal responsibility for issuing the
    dishonored checks because, as the aforementioned elements show, he already committed the
    violations upon the dishonor of the checks that he had issued at a time when the conditional sale
    was still fully binding upon the parties.

    You might also like