LEONILO DONATO, petitioner, vs. HON ARTEMON LUNA and
PAZ ABAYAN, respondents.
April 15, 1988
Facts:
On September 28, 1979, before the petitioner’s arraignment, private respondent filed with the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court a civil action for declaration of nullity of her marriage with petitioner contracted on September 26, 1978. Said civil case was based on the ground that private respondent consented to entering into the marriage, which was petitioner Donato’s second one, since she had no previous knowledge that petitioner was already married to Rosalinda Maluping on June 30, 1978. Petitioner’s answer in the civil case for nullity interposed the defense that his second marriage was void since it was solemnized without a marriage license and that force, violence, intimidation, and undue influence were employed by private respondent to obtain petitioner’s consent to the marriage. Prior to the solemnization of the subsequent marriage, petitioner and private respondent had lived together and deported themselves as husband and wife without the benefit of wedlock for a period of at least five years as evidenced by a joint affidavit executed by them on September 26, 1978, for which reason, the requisite marriage license was dispensed with pursuant to Article76 of the New Civil Code pertaining to marriages of exceptional character. Prior to the date set for the trial on the merits of Criminal Case, petitioner filed a motion to suspend the proceedings of said case contending Civil Case seeking the annulment of his second marriage filed by private respondent raises a prejudicial question which must first be determined or decided before the criminal case can proceed.
Issue:
Whether or not a criminal case for bigamy pending before the Court of First Instance should be suspended in view of a civil case for annulment of marriage pending before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court on the ground that the latter constitutes a prejudicial question
Ruling:
The respondent judge ruled in the negative and the Supreme Court sustains him. A prejudicial question has been defined to be one which arises in a case, the resolution of question is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in said case, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. It is based on a fact distinct or 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 in the 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 issue before the Juvenile and Domestic Relation Court is not determinative of petitioner’s guilt or innocence in the crime of bigamy. It was petitioner’s second wife, who filed the complainant for annulment of the second marriage on the ground that her consent was obtained through deceit. Pursuant to the doctrine discussed in Landicho vs. Relova, petitioner cannot apply the rule on prejudicial question since a case for annulment of marriage can be considered as a prejudicial question to the bigamy case against the accused only if it is proved that the petitioner’s consent to such marriage was obtained by means of duress, violence, and intimidation in order to establish that his act in the subsequent marriage was an involuntary one and as such the same cannot be the basis for conviction. The preceding elements do not exist in case at bar. Another event which militates against petitioner’s contentions is the fact that it was only when the civil case was filed on September 28, 1979, or more than the lapse of one year from the solemnization of the second marriage that petitioner came up with the story that his consent to the marriage was secured through the use of force, violence, intimidation, and undue influence. Petitioner also continued to live with private respondent until November 1978, when the latter left their abode upon learning that Leonilo Donato was already previously married.
