G.R. No. 138509.

July 31, 2000 A prejudicial question does not conclusively resolve the guilt
or innocence of the accused but simply tests the sufficiency of
IMELDA MARBELLA-BOBIS, Petitioner, v. ISAGANI D. the allegations in the information in order to sustain the
BOBIS, respondent. further prosecution of the criminal case. A party who raises a
DECISION prejudicial question is deemed to have hypothetically admitted
that all the essential elements of a crime have been adequately
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: alleged in the information, considering that the prosecution
has not yet presented a single evidence on the indictment or
On October 21, 1985, respondent contracted a first marriage
may not yet have rested its case. A challenge of the allegations
with one Maria Dulce B. Javier. Without said marriage having
in the information on the ground of prejudicial question is in
been annulled, nullified or terminated, the same respondent
effect a question on the merits of the criminal charge through
contracted a second marriage with petitioner Imelda Marbella-
a non-criminal suit.
Bobis on January 25, 1996 and allegedly a third marriage with
a certain Julia Sally Hernandez. Based on petitioners Article 40 of the Family Code, which was effective at the time
complaint-affidavit, an information for bigamy was filed of celebration of the second marriage, requires a prior judicial
against respondent on February 25, 1998, which was docketed declaration of nullity of a previous marriage before a party
as Criminal Case No. Q98-75611 of the Regional Trial Court, may remarry. The clear implication of this is that it is not for
Branch 226, Quezon City. Sometime thereafter, respondent the parties, particularly the accused, to determine the validity
initiated a civil action for the judicial declaration of absolute or invalidity of the marriage.8 Whether or not the first
nullity of his first marriage on the ground that it was marriage was void for lack of a license is a matter of defense
celebrated without a marriage license. Respondent then filed a because there is still no judicial declaration of its nullity at the
motion to suspend the proceedings in the criminal case for time the second marriage was contracted. It should be
bigamy invoking the pending civil case for nullity of the first remembered that bigamy can successfully be prosecuted
marriage as a prejudicial question to the criminal case. The provided all its elements concur two of which are a previous
trial judge granted the motion to suspend the criminal case in marriage and a subsequent marriage which would have been
an Order dated December 29, 1998.1 Petitioner filed a motion valid had it not been for the existence at the material time of
for reconsideration, but the same was denied. the first marriage.9cräläwvirtualibräry
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. Petitioner argues In the case at bar, respondents clear intent is to obtain a
that respondent should have first obtained a judicial judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage and
declaration of nullity of his first marriage before entering into thereafter to invoke that very same judgment to prevent his
the second marriage, inasmuch as the alleged prejudicial prosecution for bigamy. He cannot have his cake and eat it
question justifying suspension of the bigamy case is no longer too. Otherwise, all that an adventurous bigamist has to do is to
a legal truism pursuant to Article 40 of the Family disregard Article 40 of the Family Code, contract a subsequent
Code.2cräläwvirtualibräry marriage and escape a bigamy charge by simply claiming that
the first marriage is void and that the subsequent marriage is
The issue to be resolved in this petition is whether the
equally void for lack of a prior judicial declaration of nullity
subsequent filing of a civil action for declaration of nullity of
of the first. A party may even enter into a marriage aware of
a previous marriage constitutes a prejudicial question to a
the absence of a requisite - usually the marriage license - and
criminal case for bigamy.
thereafter contract a subsequent marriage without obtaining a
A prejudicial question is one which arises in a case the declaration of nullity of the first on the assumption that the
resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue first marriage is void. Such scenario would render nugatory
involved therein.3 It is a question based on a fact distinct and the provisions on bigamy. As succinctly held in Landicho v.
separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it Relova:10cräläwvirtualibräry
that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused. 4 It
(P)arties to a marriage should not be permitted to judge for
must appear not only that the civil case involves facts upon
themselves its nullity, only competent courts having such
which the criminal action is based, but also that the resolution
authority. Prior to such declaration of nullity, the validity of
of the issues raised in the civil action would necessarily be
the first marriage is beyond question. A party who contracts a
determinative of the criminal case.5 Consequently, the defense
second marriage then assumes the risk of being prosecuted for
must involve an issue similar or intimately related to the same
bigamy.
issue raised in the criminal action and its resolution
determinative of whether or not the latter action may Respondent alleges that the first marriage in the case before us
proceed.6 Its two essential elements are:7cräläwvirtualibräry was void for lack of a marriage license. Petitioner, on the
other hand, argues that her marriage to respondent was exempt
(a) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately
from the requirement of a marriage license. More specifically,
related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and
petitioner claims that prior to their marriage, they had already
(b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the attained the age of majority and had been living together as
criminal action may proceed. husband and wife for at least five years. 11 The issue in this
case is limited to the existence of a prejudicial question, and In the light of Article 40 of the Family Code, respondent,
we are not called upon to resolve the validity of the first without first having obtained the judicial declaration of nullity
marriage. Be that as it may, suffice it to state that the Civil of the first marriage, can not be said to have validly entered
Code, under which the first marriage was celebrated, provides into the second marriage. Per current jurisprudence, a
that "every intendment of law or fact leans toward the validity marriage though void still needs a judicial declaration of such
of marriage, the indissolubility of the marriage fact before any party can marry again; otherwise the second
bonds."12 Hence, parties should not be permitted to judge for marriage will also be void.19 The reason is that, without a
themselves the nullity of their marriage, for the same must be judicial declaration of its nullity, the first marriage is
submitted to the determination of competent courts. Only presumed to be subsisting. In the case at bar, respondent was
when the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held for all legal intents and purposes regarded as a married man at
as void, and so long as there is no such declaration the the time he contracted his second marriage with
presumption is that the marriage exists.13 No matter how petitioner.20 Against this legal backdrop, any decision in the
obvious, manifest or patent the absence of an element is, the civil action for nullity would not erase the fact that respondent
intervention of the courts must always be resorted to. That is entered into a second marriage during the subsistence of a first
why Article 40 of the Family Code requires a "final marriage. Thus, a decision in the civil case is not essential to
judgment," which only the courts can render. Thus, as ruled the determination of the criminal charge. It is, therefore, not a
in Landicho v. Relova,14 he who contracts a second marriage prejudicial question. As stated above, respondent cannot be
before the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage permitted to use his own malfeasance to defeat the criminal
assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy, and in such a action against him.21cräläwvirtualibräry
case the criminal case may not be suspended on the ground of
the pendency of a civil case for declaration of nullity. In a WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The order dated
recent case for concubinage, we held that the pendency of a December 29, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 226
civil case for declaration of nullity of marriage is not a of Quezon City is REVERSEDand SETASIDE and the trial
prejudicial question.15 This ruling applies here by analogy court is ordered to IMMEDIATELYproceed with Criminal
since both crimes presuppose the subsistence of a marriage. Case No. Q98-75611.

Ignorance of the existence of Article 40 of the Family Code SO ORDERED.

cannot even be successfully invoked as an excuse. 16 The Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno,
contracting of a marriage knowing that the requirements of the Kapunan, and Pardo, JJ., concur.
law have not been complied with or that the marriage is in
disregard of a legal impediment is an act penalized by the
Revised Penal Code.17 The legality of a marriage is a matter of
law and every person is presumed to know the law. As
respondent did not obtain the judicial declaration of nullity
when he entered into the second marriage, why should he be
allowed to belatedly obtain that judicial declaration in order to
delay his criminal prosecution and subsequently defeat it by
his own disobedience of the law? If he wants to raise the
nullity of the previous marriage, he can do it as a matter of
defense when he presents his evidence during the trial proper
in the criminal case.

The burden of proof to show the dissolution of the first

marriage before the second marriage was contracted rests
upon the defense,18 but that is a matter that can be raised in the
trial of the bigamy case. In the meantime, it should be stressed
that not every defense raised in the civil action may be used as
a prejudicial question to obtain the suspension of the criminal
action. The lower court, therefore, erred in suspending the
criminal case for bigamy. Moreover, when respondent was
indicted for bigamy, the fact that he entered into two marriage
ceremonies appeared indubitable. It was only after he was
sued by petitioner for bigamy that he thought of seeking a
judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage. The
obvious intent, therefore, is that respondent merely resorted to
the civil action as a potential prejudicial question for the
purpose of frustrating or delaying his criminal prosecution. As
has been discussed above, this cannot be done.