VOL.

160, APRIL 15, 1988 441

Donato vs. Luna

*
No. L-53642. April 15,1988 .

LEONILO C. DONATO, petitioners, vs. HON. ARTEMON

D. LUNA, PRESIDING JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE OF MANILA, BRANCH XXXII; HON. JOSE
FLAMINIANO, CITY FISCAL OF MANILA; PAZ B.
ABAYAN, respondents.

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Prejudicial Question;

Nature and concept of a prejudicial question.—A prejudicial
question has been defined to be one which arises in a case, the
resolution of which question is a logical antecedent of the issue
involved in said case, and the cognizance of which pertains to
another tribunal. It is 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

________________

* EN BANC.

442

442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Donato vs. Luna

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. A prejudicial question
usually comes into play in a situation where a civil action and a
criminal action may proceed, because howsoever the issue raised
in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de
jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in a criminal case.
Same; Same; Same; Requisites of a prejudicial question, not
present in case at bar; Issue of nullity of the second marriage filed
by the second wife before the juvenile court is not determinative of
the husband’s guilt or innocence in the crime ofbigamy.—The
requisites of a prejudicial question do 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. Furthermore, it was
petitioner’B second wife, the herein private respondent Paz B.
Abayan who filed the complaint for annulment of the second
marriage on the ground that her consent was obtained through
deceit.
Same; Same; Same; Petitioner husband has not shown that
his consent to the second marriage has been obtained by the use of
threats, force and intimidation.—ln the case at bar, pctiUoner has
not even sufficiently shown that his consent to the second
marriage has been obtained by the use of threats, force and
intimidation.
Same; Same; Same; The rule on prejudicial questions cannot
apply 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 petitioner’s consent to the marriage was
obtained by duress, violence and intimidation.—Pursuant to the
doctrine discussed in Landicho vs. Relova, petitioner Donato
cannot apply the rule on prejudicial questions 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 the case at bar.
Same; Same; Same; Petitioner husband merely raised in case
at bar the issue of prejudicial question to evade the prosecution of
the criminal case against him,—Obviouflly, petitioner merely
raised the

443

VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 443

Donato vs. Luna

issue of prejudicial question to evade the prosecution of the

criminal case. The records reveal that prior to petitioner’B second
marriage on September 26,1978, he had been living with private
respondent Paz B. Abayan as husband and wife for more than five
years without the benefit of marriage. Thus, petitioner’s
averments that his consent was obtained by private respondent
through force, violence, intimidation and undue influence in
entering a subsequent marriage is belied by the fact that both
petitioner and private respondent executed an affidavit which
stated that they had lived together as husband and wife without
benefit of marriage for five years. One month and one day until
their marital union was formally ratified by the second marriage
and that it was private respondent who eventually filed the civil
action for nullity.

PETITION for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary

injunction to review the resolution of the Court of First
Instance of Manila, Br. 32. Luna, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court

     Leopoldo P. Dela Rosa for petitioner.
     Emiterio C. Manibog for private respondent.
     City Fiscal ofManila for public respondent.

GANCAYCO, J.:

In this petition for certiorari and prohibition with

preliminary injunction, the question for the resolution of
the Court is whether or not a criminal case for bigamy
pending before the Court of First Instance of Manila 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. The respondent judge ruled in the
negative. We sustain him.
 The pertinent facts as set forth in the records follow. On
January 23,1979, the City Fiscal of Manila acting thru
Assistant City Fiscal Amado N. Cantor filed an information
for bigamy against herein petitioner, Leonilo C. Donato
vri£h the Court of First Instance of Manila, docketed as
Criminal Case No. 43554 and assigned to Branch XXXII of
said court. The information was filed based on the
complaint of private respondent Paz B. Abayan.
On September 28,1979, before the petitioner’s
arraignment,
444

444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Donato vs. Luna

private respondent filed with the Juvenile and Domestic

Relations Court of Manila a civil action for declaration of
nullity of her marriage with petitioner contracted on
September 26, 1978, which action was docketed as Civil
Case No. E-02627. 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 a certain Rosalinda R. Maluping on June
30,1978. Petitioner Donato’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 or second 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 Article 76
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 No. 43554, petitioner filed a motion to
suspend the proceedings of said case contending that Civil
Case No. E-02627 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.
In an order dated April 7, 1980. Hon. Artemon D. Luna
denied the motion to suspend the proceedings in Criminal
Case No. 43554 for bigamy. Respondent judge’s basis for
denial is
1
the ruling laid down in the case of Landicho vs.
Relova. The order further directed that the proceedings in
the criminal case can proceed as scheduled.
A motion for reconsideration was filed by herein
petitioner thru counsel citing as one of his grounds for
suspension of pro ceedings the ruling laid down by this
Court in the case of De la Cruz vs. Ejercito,2 which was a
much later case than that cited

________________

1 22 SCRA 731.
2 68 SCRA 1.

445
 VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 445
Donato vs. Luna

by respondent judge in his order of denial.

The motion for reconsideration of the said order was
likewise denied in an order dated April 14, 1980, for lack of
merit. Hence, the present petition for certiorari and
prohibition with preliminary injunction,
A prejudicial question has been defined to be one which
arises in a case, the resolution of which question is a logical
antecedent of the issue involved in said case,3 and the
cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. It is 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 or4
innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.
A prejudicial question usually comes into play in a
situation where a civil action and a criminal action may
proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil
action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure5
of
the guilt or innocence of the accused in a criminal case.
The requisites of a prejudicisJ question do not obtain in
the case at bar. It must be noted that the issue before the
Juvenile and Domestic Reiations Court touching upon the
nullity of the second marriage is not determinative of
petitioner Donato’s guilt or innocence in the crime of
bigamy. Furthermore, it was petitioner’s second wife, the
herein private respondent Paz B. Abayan who filed the
complaint for annulment of the second marriage on the
ground that her consent was obtained through deceit.
Petitioner Donato raised the argument that the second
marriage should have been declared null and void on the
ground of force, threats and intimidation allegedly
employed against him by private respondent only sometime
later when he was required to answer the civil action for
annulment of the second

________________

3 People vs. Aragon, 94 Phil. 367; Isip vs. Gonzales, 39 SCRA 255; Rojas
vs. People, 57 SCRA 243.
4 Librado vs. Coscolluela, Jr., 116 SCRA 303.
5 Ibid.

446

446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Donato vs. Luna

marriage. The doctrine

6
elucidated upon by the case of
Landicho vs. Relova may be applied to the present case.
Said case states that:

The mere fact that there are actions to annul the marriages
entered into by the accused in a bigamy case does not mean that
‘prejudicial questions’ are automatically raised in civil actions as
to warrant the suspension of the criminal case. In order that the
case of annulment of marriage be considered a prejudicial
question to the bigamy case against the accused, it must be shown
that the petitioner’s consent to such marriage must be the one
that wa& obtained by means of duress, force 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. The
situation in the present case is markedly different. At the time
the petitioner was indicted for bigamy on February 27,1963, the
fact that two marriage ceremonies had been contracted appeared
to be indisputable. And it was the second spouse, not the
petitioner who filed the action for nullity on the ground of force,
threats and intimidation. And it was only on June 15, 1963, that
petitioner, as defendant in the civil action, filed a thirdparty
complaint against the first spouse alleging that his marriage with
her should be declared null and void on the ground of force,
threats and intimidation. Assuming that the first marriage was
null and void on the ground alleged by petitioner, the fact would
not be material to the outcome of the criminal case. Parties to the
marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its
nullity, for the same must be submitted to the judgment of the
competent courts and only when the nullity of the marriage is so
declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is no such
declaration the presumption is that the marriage exists.
Therefore, he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial
declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of
being prosecuted for bigamy. The lower court therefore, has not
abused, much less gravely abused, its discretion in failing to
suspend the hearing as sought by petitioner.”

In the case at bar, petitioner has not even sufficiently

shown that his consent to the second marriage has been
obtained by the use of threats, force and intimidation.
Petitioner calls the attention of this Court to the fact
that the case of De la Cruz vs. Ejercito is a later case and as
such it

________________

6 22 SCRA 73.

447

VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 447

Donato vs. Luna

should be the one applied to the case at bar. We cannot

agree. The situation in the case at bar is markedly
different. In the aforecited case it was accused Milagros
dela Cruz who was charged with bigamy for having
contracted a second marriage while a previous one existed.
Likewise, Milagros dela Cruz was also the one who filed an
action for annulment on the ground of duress, as
contradistinguished from the present case wherein it was
private respondent Paz B. Abayan, petitioner’s second wife,
who filed a complaint for annulment of the second marriage
on the ground that her consent was obtained through
deceit since she was not aware that petitioner’s first
marriage was still subsisting. Moreover, in De la Cruz, a
judgment was already rendered in the civil case that the
second marriage of De la Cruz was null and void, thus
determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in
the criminal case. In the present case, there is as yet no
such judgment in the civil case.
Pursuant to the doctrine discussed in Landicho vs.
Relova, petitioner Donato cannot apply the rule on
prejudicial questions 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 the
case at bar.
Obviously, petitioner merely raised the issue of
prejudicial question to evade the prosecution of the
criminal case. The records reveal that prior to petitioner’s
second marriage on September 26, 1978, he had been living
with private respondent Paz B. Abayan as husband and
wife for more than five years without the benefit of
marriage. Thus, petitioner’s averments that his consent
was obtained by private respondent through force, violence,
intimidation and undue influence in entering a subsequent
marriage is belied by the fact that both petitioner and
private respondent executed an affidavit which stated that
they had lived together as husband and wife without
benefit of marriage for five years, one month and one day
until their marital union was formally ratified by the
second marriage and that it was private respondent who
eventually
448

448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Donato vs. Luna

filed the civil action for nullity.

Another event which militates against petitioner’s
contentions is the fact that it was only when Civil Case No.
E-02627 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.
In the light of the preceding factual circumstances, it
can be seen that the respondent Judge did not err in his
earlier order. There is no pivotal issue that must be
preemptively resolved in Civil Case No. E-02627 before
proceedings in the criminal action for bigamy can be
undertaken.
Accordingly, there being no prejudicial question shown
to exist, 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.
SO ORDERED.

     Teehankee (C.J.), Narvasa, Cruz and Griño-Aquino,

JJ., concur.

Petition dismissed.

Note.—A judicial question is 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. (Librodo vs.
Coscolluela, Jr., 116 SCRA 303.)
 ——o0o——

449

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.