ABUNDIO MERCED, petitioner, vs. HON. CLEMENTINO V. DIEZ. ETC. ET AL., respondents
No. L-15315. August 26, 1960
Facts:
On January 30, 1958, Abundio Merced, already married to Eufrocina Tan, filed a complaint for annulment of his second marriage with Elizabeth Ceasar on the ground that he was threatened and intimidated into signing an affidavit that he and Elizabeth had been living as husband and wife which was used by the Elizabeth in securing their marriage of exceptional character, without the need for marriage license; that he was again threatened by Elizabeth and her relatives to enter into the marriage on August 21, 1957; and that he never lived with her. Merced prays for annulment of the marriage and for moral damages in the amount of P2,000.
In her answer to the civil case, Elizabeth Ceasar denied the allegations of the complaint and avers that neither she nor her relatives know of plaintiff’s previous marriage. According to her, it was Merced who insisted on the marriage. As a counterclaim she asked for P50, 000 for moral damages. She later on filed a criminal complaint for bigamy against Merced.
Merced filed a motion to hold to trial of said criminal case in abeyance until final termination of the civil case on the ground that the latter involves facts which if proved will determine the innocence of the accused. This motion was granted, but upon a motion for reconsideration by the fiscal, the order for suspension was set aside and denied on the ground that in People vs Mendoza, judicial declaration of nullity of a second and bigamous marriage is not necessary.
Issue:
Whether or not an action to annul the second marriage is a prejudicial question in a prosecution for bigamy.
Ruling:
The civil case presents a prejudicial question which must first be resolved before the criminal case.
The elements of prejudicial question are the following: (1) it must be determinative of the case before the court; (2) jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal.
For the first element, in order that the Merced be held guilty of the crime of bigamy, the marriage which she contracted for the second time with Elizabeth Ceasar, must first be declared valid. But its validity has been questioned in the civil action. This civil action must be decided before the prosecution for bigamy can proceed. In order that a person may be held guilty of the crime of bigamy, the second and subsequent marriage must have all the essential elements of a valid marriage, were it not for the subsistence of the first marriage. One of the elements is consent, without it, a marriage would be illegal and void. Since Merced claims that he was forced into the marriage, the validity of the second marriage is determinative of the guilt of Merced in the crime of bigamy.
The denial of the suspension of the criminal case was based on the case of People vs. Mendoza. The same cannot be applied in this case because of different set of facts. In this case, Mendoza was first married with Josefa, then married Olga, and after the death of Josefa, married Carmencita. Olga filed a case of bigamy because of the third marriage. The Court held that he is not guilty of bigamy since the marriage with Olga was void, having been contracted when Josefa was still alive, whereas the marriage with Carmencita is valid because it was contracted when the first wife was already dead.
For the second element, (NOTE: IN THIS CASE, THE CIVIL CASE AND THE CRIMINAL CASE WERE BOTH FILED IN THE SAME COURT) Spanish jurisprudence, requires that the essential element determinative of the criminal action must be cognizable by another court. This requirement is due to the fact that Spanish courts jurisdictions’ are exclusively divided into civil or criminal. In the Philippines, where our courts are vested with both civil and criminal jurisdiction, the principle of prejudicial question is to be applied even if there is only one court before which the civil action and the criminal action are to be litigated. But in this case the court when exercising its jurisdiction over the civil action for the annulment of marriage is considered as a court distinct and different from itself when trying the criminal action for bigamy.
