Case 65 - ALFREDO CHING VS.

CA
G.R. NO. 110844 (2000)

On August 1990, Liliana filed an information

charging Arthur with bigamy.

Facts: Petitioner was charged before the

Makati RTC with Estafa, in relation to the
Trust Receipts Law. Thereafter, Petitioner
filed before the Manila RTC for declaration of
nullity of documents and for damages.
Petitioner then filed a petition before the
Makati RTC for the suspension of the criminal
proceedings on the ground of prejudicial
question in a civil action.

Meanwhile, in July 1990, Arthur Te filed an

action for annulment on the ground that he
was forced to marry her, that she concealed
her pregnancy by another man at the time of
their
marriage
and
psychologically
incapacity.

Issue: Whether or not there is a prejudicial

question
Held: No. The two essential requisites of a
prejudicial question are: (1) the civil action
involves an issue similar or intimately related
to the issue raised in the criminal action; and
(2) the resolution of such issue determines
whether or not the criminal action may
proceed. In the case at bar, the alleged
prejudicial question in the civil case for the
declaration of nullity of documents and for
damages, does not determine the guilt or
innocence of the accused in the criminal
action for estafa. Assuming arguendo that
the court hearing the civil aspect of the case
adjudicates that the transaction entered into
between the parties was not a trust receipt
agreement, nonetheless the guilt of the
accused could still be established and his
culpability under penal laws determined by
other evidence.
CASE 66 - ARTHUR TE VS. CA, LILIANA
CHOA
FACTS: Arthur Te and Liliana Choa were
married in Sept 1988. They do not live
together but meet regularly until after Liliana
gave birth that Arthur stopped visiting her.
On May 20, 1990, while their marriage was
still subsisting, Arthur contracted a second
marriage with Julieta Santella.

On November 8, 1990, Liliana also filed with

the Professional Regulation Commission
(PRC) an administrative case against
petitioner and Santella for the revocation of
their respective engineering licenses on the
ground that they committed acts of
immorality and an act of falsification against
Arthur when he stated in his 2 nd marriage
contract that he was still single.
After the prosecution or criminal case,
petitioner filed demurrer to evidence and
motion to inhibit the judge were filed but
were eventually denied by the court. Thus:
A. petitioner filed a petition for certiorari filed
with the CA
alleging grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the trial court judge,
Judge Cezar C. Peralejo.
B. Petitioner filed with the Board of Civil
Engineering of the PRC a motion to suspend
the proceedings therein in view of the
pendency of the case for annulment of his 1 st
marriage and case for bigamy, but it was
subsequently denied. Thus, he filed with the
CA another petition for certiorari against
Board for grave abuse of discretion: (1) NOT
holding that the annulment case is
prejudicial
to
the
outcome
of
the
administrative case; (2) X X X (3) making an
overly-sweeping interpretation that Section
32 of the Rules and Regulations Governing
the Regulation and Practice of Professionals
does not allow the suspension of the
administrative proceeding before the PRC
Board despite the pendency of criminal
and/or administrative proceedings against

the same respondent involving the same set

of facts.

shall be deemed valid until

otherwise in a judicial proceeding,

CA rendered that no prejudicial question

existed since the action sought to be
suspended is administrative in nature, and
the other action involved is a civil case.

2. Civil case for annulment does NOT pose a

prejudicial
question
to
suspend
an
administrative proceeding.

ISSUES:
1. WON there is a prejudicial question
between the civil case of annulment and
criminal case of bigamy.
2. WON there is a prejudicial question
between the civil case of annulment and
administrative case.
HELD: No, No.
* Prejudicial Question - one based 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.
1. Civil case for annulment did NOT pose a
prejudicial question to the criminal case of
bigamy.
The outcome of the civil case for annulment
of
petitioners
marriage
to
private
respondent had no bearing upon the
determination of petitioners innocence or
guilt in the criminal case for bigamy,
because all that is required for bigamy to
prosper is that the 1st marriage be subsisting
at the time the 2nd marriage is contracted.
Even a declaration that their marriage was
void ab initio would NOT necessarily absolve
him from criminal liability. Art. 40 of Family
Code is already in effect at the time of their
marriage (Sept 1988) stating that a
marriage, even one which is void or voidable,

declared

There is no prejudicial question where one

case is administrative and the other is civil.
The concept of prejudicial question involves
a civil and a criminal case.
Furthermore, Section 32 of the Rules and
Regulations Governing the Regulation and
Practice of Professionals of the PRC Board
expressly provides that the administrative
proceedings before it shall not be suspended
notwithstanding the existence of a criminal
and/or civil case against the respondent
involving
the
same
facts
as
the
administrative case.
The Board shall proceed independently with
the investigation of the case and shall render
therein its decision without awaiting for the
final decision of the courts or quasi-judicial
body.
CASE 67 - MERCADO vs. TAN
Article 40 (Without judicial declaration
of nullity)
Facts: This is a petition for a review on
Certiorari assailing the July 14, 1998 Decision
of the Court of Appeals and its January 4,
1999 Resolution denying reconsideration.
The assailed Decision affirmed the ruling of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City
in Criminal Case No. 13848, which convicted
herein petitioner of bigamy.
Vincent G. Mercado, while still being
married to Thelma Oliva in a marriage
ceremony solemnized on April 10, 1976 by
Judge Leonardo B. Caare , contracted
another marriage with Ma. Consuelo Tan on
June 27, 1991 by reason of which a Marriage
Contract was duly executed and signed by
the parties. As entered in said document, the
status of accused was single.

Tan filed bigamy against Mercado and one

month after the latter filed an action for
declaration of nullity of marriage against
Oliva. The RTC decision declared the
marriage between Mercado and Oliva null
and void.
Issue: Whether or not Mercado committed
bigamy in spite of filing the declaration of
nullity of his first marriage.

nullity on the ground that there was no

marriage ceremony. Morigo was then
charged with bigamy and moved for a
suspension of arraignment since the civil
case pending posed a prejudicial question in
the bigamy case. Morigo pleaded not guilty
claiming that his marriage with Barrete was
void ab initio. Petitioner contented he
contracted second marriage in good faith.

RULING: Yes. Article 40 of the Family Code

expressly requires a judicial declaration of
nullity of the previous marriage, as follows:
"Article 40. The absolute nullity of a previous,
marriage may be invoked for purposes of
remarriage on the basis solely of a final
judgment declaring such marriage void."

ISSUE:

A declaration of nullity of marriage is

now necessary before one can contract a
second marriage. Absent that declaration,
one may be charged with and convicted of
bigamy. Such declaration is also necessary
even if the earlier marriage is characterized
by statute "void."

HELD:

In the case at bar, Mercado was

already married to Tan but did not file a
declaration of nullity of marriage with Oliva
until Tan filed bigamy case. The crime had
already been consummated by then. To file
a petition to have his first marriage void after
Tan charged him with bigamy is not a
defense in a bigamy charge.
CASE 68 - Morigo vs. People, 422 SCRA
376
GR No. 145226, February 6, 2004
FACTS:
Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were
boardmates in Bohol. They lost contacts for a
while but after receiving a card from Barrete
and various exchanges of letters, they
became sweethearts. They got married in
1990. Barrete went back to Canada for work
and in 1991 she filed petition for divorce in
Ontario Canada, which was granted. In 1992,
Morigo married Lumbago. He subsequently
filed a complaint for judicial declaration of

Whether or not Morigos failure to file a

declaration of nullity of marriage with
Barrete before his second marriage convicts
him of bigamy.

The elements of bigamy are:

(1) the offender has been legally married;
(2) the first marriage has not been legally
dissolved, or in case his or her spouse
is absent, the absent spouse has not
been judicially declared presumptively
dead;
(3) he contracts a subsequent marriage;
and
(4) the subsequent marriage would have
been valid had it not been for the
existence of the first.
Morigos marriage with Barrete is void ab
initio considering that there was no actual
marriage ceremony performed between
them by a solemnizing officer, and instead
they just merely signed a marriage contract.
The petitioner does not need to file
declaration of the nullity of his marriage
when he contracted his second marriage
with Lumbago. Hence, he did not commit
bigamy and is acquitted in the case filed.

CASE 69 - Spouses Yu vs. PCIB

GR No. 147902, March 17, 2006

FACTS:
Petitioners
Vicente
Yu
and
Demetria Lee-Yu mortgaged
their
title,
interest, and participation over several
parcels of land located in Dagupan City and
Quezon City, in favor of the Philippine
Commercial International Bank, respondent
and highest bidder, as security for the
payment of a loan.
As petitioners failed to pay the loan and the
interest
and
penalties
due
thereon,
respondent
filed
petition
for extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage
on the Dagupan City properties on July 21,
1998. City Sheriff issued notice of extrajudicial sale on August 3, 1998 scheduling
the auction sale on September 10, 1998.
Certificate of Sale was issued on September
14, 1998 in favor of respondent, the highest
bidder. The sale was registered with the
Registry of Deeds in Dagupan City on
October 1, 1998. After two months before the
expiration of
the redemption period,
respondent filed an ex-parte petition for writ
of possession before RTC of Dagupan.
Petitioners complaint on annulment of
certificate of sale and motion to dismiss and
to strike out testimony of Rodante Manuel
was denied by said RTC. Motion for
reconsideration was then filed on February
14, 2000 arguing that the complaint on
annulment of certificate of sale is a
prejudicial issue to the filed ex-parte petition
for writ of possession, the resolution of which
is determinative of propriety of the issuance
of a Writ of Possession.
ISSUE: Whether prejudicial question exist in
a civil case for annulment of a certificate of
sale and a petition for the issuance of a writ
of possession.
HELD: Supreme Court held that no
prejudicial question can arise from the
existence of a civil case for annulment of a
certificate of sale and a petition for the
issuance of a writ of possession in a special
proceeding since the two cases are both civil
in nature which can proceed separately and
take their own direction independently of
each other.

A prejudicial question is one that arises in a

case the resolution of which is a logical
antecedent of the issue involved therein, and
the cognizance of which pertains to another
tribunal. It 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 be
preemptively resolved before the criminal
action may proceed because issue raised in
civil action would be determinative de jure of
the guilt or innocence of the accused in a
criminal case.
CASE 80 - Donato vs. Luna
GR No. 53642, April 15, 1988
FACTS: An information for bigamy against
petitioner Leonilo Donato was filed on
January 23, 1979 with the lower court in
Manila. This was based on the complaint of
private respondent Paz Abayan. Before the
petitioners arraignment on September 28,
1979, Paz filed with Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court of Manila, 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 Paz consented to entering into
the marriage which was Donatos second
since she had no previous knowledge that
Donato was already married to a certain
Rosalinda Maluping on June 30, 1978. Donato
defensed 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 second marriage, Paz
and Donato had lived together as husband
and wife without the benefit of wedlock for 5
years proven by a joint affidavit executed by
them on September 26, 1978 for which
reason, the requisite marriage license was
dispensed with pursuant to Article 76 of the
Civil Code. Donato continued to live with Paz
until November 1978 where Paz left their
home upon learning that Donato already
previously married.

ISSUE: Whether or not a criminal case for

bigamy pending before the lower court be
suspended in view of a civil case for
annulment of marriage pending before the
juvenile and domestic relations court on the
ground that latter constitutes a prejudicial
question.
HELD: Petitioner Leonilo Donato cant apply
rule on prejudicial question since a case for
annulment of marriage can only be
considered as a prejudicial question to the
bigamy case against the accused if it was
proved that petitioners consent to such
marriage and was obtained by means of
duress violence and intimidation to show that

his act in the second marriage must be

involuntary and cannot be the basis of his
conviction for the crime of bigamy.
Accordingly, there being no prejudicial
question shown to exit the order of denial
issued by the respondent judge dated April
14, 1980 should be sustained.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack
of merit. We make no pronouncement as to
costs.