De leon, Redjina B.

JD-2a

Case Digest - Prejudicial Question cases

G.R. No. L-37652. December 26, 1984

Facts:
Virginia Prado legally united with Arturo Espiritu, and without being dissolved the said
marriage, entered into a subsequent marriage with Julio Manalansang at the Philippine
Embassy in Saigon, South Vietnam. Thus, an information was filed before the Court of First
Instance of Manila charging her with the crime of Bigamy.
Petitioner moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the trial court has no
jurisdiction over the second marriage as it is outside the territory of the Philippines and it does
not fall under the exception enumerated in Art 2 of Revised Penal Code. Which was later on
denied by the court.
On July 21, 1973, petitioner filed an action for annulment of her second marriage on the
ground that her consent thereto was obtained by means of force and intimidation, and that
she never freely cohabited with Julio. She also filed a motion to suspend trial by reason of the
existence of prejudicial question in the Bigamy case.
The trial court denied the motion, ruling that the motion was only a scheme to unduly delay
the hearing of the case.

Issue:
Whether a pending civil case foe annulment of marriage constitutes a prejudicial question in
a Bigamy case.

Ruling:
Yes. For a civil case to be considered prejudicial to a criminal case to cause the suspension of
the criminal proceedings until the final resolution of the civil case, the following requisites
must be present: (1) the civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the
criminal prosecution would be based; (2) in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the
civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined; (3)
jurisdiction to said question must be lodged in another tribunal.
The foregoing requisites being present in the case at bar, the suspensive effect of a prejudicial
question comes to play. Even though, as contended by the Solicitor General, the filing of
annulment case does not automatically give rise to a prejudicial question as to bar trial of a
Bigamy case, considering the gravity of the charge, petitioner cannot be deprived of her right
to prove her ground for annulment, which could well determinative of her guilt or innocence.
Thus, the Court order the suspension of the criminal proceedings of the Bigamy case until the
final determination of the annulment case.
De leon, Redjina B. JD-2a

G.R. No. 159218. March 30, 2004

Facts:
On September 18, 1967, Salvador married Narcisa. In 1988, she left for Japan and upon her
return in the Philippines in 1992 she discovered that Salvador was cohabiting with Corazon.
And she also discovered that on January 10, 1989 Salvador contracted a second marriage with
Zenaida.
On January 19,1995, an annulment case was filed by Salvador against Narcisa. A case for
Bigamy was later on filed by Narcisa against Salvador and Zenaida.
The trial court convicted Salvador and acquitted Zenaida, which was affirmed and modified
as to the penalty imposed by the appellate court.

Issue:
Whether the declaration of nullity of marriage was a prejudicial question to the Bigamy case.

Ruling:
No. A prejudicial question has been defined as one bases on a fact distinct and separate from
the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the
accused, and for it to suspend the criminal action, it must appear not only that said case
involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based
but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or
innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.
The Court ruled that the outcome of the civil case for annulment of marriage had no bearing
upon the determination of the petitioner’s innocence or guilt in the Bigamy case, because all
that is required for the charge of Bigamy to prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at
the time the second marriage is contracted. Therefore, the decision of Court of Appeals was
affirmed.

G.R. No. 183805. July 3, 2013

Facts:
On December 8, 1999, James being previously legally united with Karla and without having
the marriage legally dissolved, contracted a second marriage to Shirley.
On June 28, 2004, petitioner was charged with the crime of Bigamy. A motion to suspend
proceeding was filed by the petitioner alleging that there is a pending civil case for declaration
of nullity of the second marriage and the said pending case serve as a prejudicial question in
the instant criminal case.
De leon, Redjina B. JD-2a

In the interim, the second marriage was declared void. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a
motion to dismissed the Bigamy case, on the ground that the second marriage had already
been declared void, which was granted. Upon appeal before the Court of Appeal, the decision
was reversed and set aside. The case was remanded for further proceeding.

Issue:
Whether the subsequent declaration of nullity of the second, marriage is a ground for the
dismissal of the Bigamy case.

Ruling:
No. What makes a person criminally liable for Bigamy is when he contracted a second or
subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage. Therefore, he who contracted
a second marriage before the judicial declaration of the first marriage assume the risk of being
prosecuted of Bigamy.
In the present case, all elements of the crime of Bigamy were present when the Information
was filed. Thus, the subsequent judicial declaration of the second marriage for being bigamous
in nature does not bar the prosecution of the petitioner for the crime of Bigamy.

G.R. No, 172060. September 13, 2010

Facts:
On October 25, 2004, an action for frustrated parricide was filed against the petitioner.
On February 7,2005, a summon was received by the petitioner for the pre-trial and trial of
the civil case for declaration of nullity of marriage. Later on, petitioner filed an urgent, motion
to suspend the proceedings of the criminal case on the ground of existence of prejudicial
question. which was denied by the trial court. On appeal, the same was denied, ruling that the
two cases have different issues involved, and even if the marriage between the petitioner would
be declared void, it would be immaterial to the criminal case because prior to the declaration
of nullity, the alleged acts constituting the crime of frustrated parricide had already been
committed.

Issue:
Whether the resolution of the action for annulment of marriage is a prejudicial question that
will warrant the suspension of the criminal case for frustrated parricide against the petitioner.

Ruling:
No. Annulment of marriage is not a prejudicial question in criminal case for parricide.
Further, the resolution of the civil action is not a prejudicial question that would warrant the
De leon, Redjina B. JD-2a

suspension of the criminal action. There is a prejudicial question when a civil action and a
criminal action are both pending, and there exists in the civil action an issue which must be
pre-emptively resolve before the criminal action may proceed because howsoever the issue
raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the
accused in the criminal case.
The issue raised in the annulment of marriage is not similar or intimately related to the issue
in the criminal cases for parricide. Further, the relation between the offender and the victim
is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Thus, the petition was denied.

G.R. No. 137567. June 20, 2000

Facts:
Merynardo Beltran and Charmaine Felix were married. On February 7, 1997 petitioner filed
a petition for nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. Subsequently,
Charmaine filed a criminal complaint for concubinage against petitioner and his paramour.
Petitioner filed a motion to defer proceedings including the issuance of the warrant of arrest,
on the ground that the pendency of the civil case for declaration of nullity of his marriage posed
a prejudicial question to the determination of the criminal case. The motion was denied.

Issue:
Whether there is a prejudicial question at the case at bar.

Ruling:
No. The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting
decisions.
The pendency of the case for declaration of nullity of petitioner’s marriage is not a prejudicial
question to the concubinage case. For a civil case to be considered prejudicial to a criminal
action as to cause the suspension of the latter pending the final determination of the civil case,
it must appear not only that the said civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal
prosecution would be based, but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the
aforesaid civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.
Therefore, he who cohabits with a woman not his wife before the judicial declaration of nullity
of the marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for concubinage. The lower court
therefore, has not erred in affirming the Orders of the judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court
ruling that pendency of a civil action for nullity of marriage does not pose a prejudicial
question in a criminal case for concubinage.