LEONILO DONATO, petitioner, vs. HON ARTEMON LUNA and
PAZ ABAYAN, respondents.
April 15, 1988
Facts:
On September 28, 1979, respondent Paz B. Abayan filed before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Manila a civil action for the declaration of nullity of marriage with petitioner Donato. Abayan contends that she had no idea that Donato has been married prior to the contracted marriage. Donato on the other hand 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 Abayan to obtain petitioner’s consent on the marriage. Petitioner subsequently filed for the suspension of the proceedings of the said case contending that civil case filed for the nullity of his marriage with respondent raises a prejudicial question which must be determined or decided before the criminal case can proceed. Hon. Artemon D. Luna on the other hand ruled otherwise directing the proceedings in he criminal case to proceed as scheduled.
Issue:
Whether or not criminal case proceedings should be suspended in view of the prejudicial question raised by the filed civil case.
Ruling:
A prejudicial question is defined to be one in which resolution is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in the said case, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. The requisites of a prejudicial question was not obtain in the case at bar. It must be noted that the issue before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court touching upon the nullity of the second marriage is not determinative of petitioner Donato’s guilt or innocence in the crime of bigamy. The records reveal that prior to petitioner’s second marriage, he had been living with private respondent as husband and wife for more than five years without the benefit of marriage. Thus, petitioner’s averments that his consent was obtained through force and undue influence is belled by the fact that both petitioner and private respondent executed an affidavit which stated that they had lived together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage for more than five years before the subsequent marriage was contracted. As such, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
