Te Vs CA PDF

9/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME346
VOL. 346, NOVEMBER 29, 2000
327
Te vs. Court of Appeals

*
G.R. No. 126746. November 29, 2000.
ARTHUR TE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, and

LILIANA CHOA, respondents.
Actions Criminal Procedure Prejudicial Questions Words
and Phrases Prejudicial Question, Explained The rationale
behind the principle of suspending a criminal case in view of a
prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting decisions.A
prejudicial question has been defined as 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.
The rationale behind the principle of suspending a criminal case
in view of a prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting
decisions.
Same Same Same Marriage Husband and Wife Annulment
of Marriage Bigamy The outcome of the civil case for annulment
of marriage has no bearing upon the determination of the
accuseds innocence or guilt in the criminal case for bigamy,
because all that is required for the charge of bigamy to prosper is
that the first marriage be subsisting at the time the second
marriage is contracted The ruling in People v. Mendoza, 95 Phil.
843 (1954) and People v. Aragon, 100 Phil. 1033 (1957) that no
judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of a
marriage which is void ab initio has been overturnedthe
prevailing rule is found in Article 40 of the Family Code.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 the charge of bigamy to prosper is
that the first marriage be subsisting at the time the second
marriage is contracted. Petitioners argument that the nullity of
his marriage to private respondent had to be resolved first in the
civil case before the criminal proceedings could continue, because
a declaration that their marriage was void ab initio would
necessarily absolve him from criminal liability, is untenable. The
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001574b9bd97cc2427703003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
1/16
9/21/2016
ruling in People vs. Mendoza and People vs. Aragon cited by

petitioner that no judicial decree is necessary to establish the
invalidity of a marriage which is void ab initio has been
overturned. The prevailing rule is
________________
*
FIRST DIVISION.
328
328
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

found in Article 40 of the Family Code, which was already in

effect at the time of petitioners marriage to private respondent in
September 1988. Said article states that the absolute nullity of a
previous marriage may not be invoked for purposes of remarriage
unless there is a final judgment declaring such previous marriage
void. Thus, under the law, a marriage, even one which is void or
voidable, shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a
judicial proceeding.
Same Same Same Administrative Law There is no
prejudicial question where one case is administrative and the other
is civil.Neither did the filing of said civil case for annulment
necessitate the suspension of the administrative proceedings
before the PRO Board. As discussed above, the concept of
prejudicial question involves a civil and a criminal case. We have
previously ruled that there is no prejudicial question where one
case is administrative and the other is civil.
Same Same Same Same Professional Regulation
Commission 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.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 filing or
pendency of a criminal and/or civil cases in the courts or an
administrative case in another judicial body against an examinee
or registered professional involving the same facts as in the
administrative case filed or to be filed before the Board shall
neither suspend nor bar the proceeding of the latter case. The
2/16
9/21/2016
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 quasijudicial body.
Criminal Procedure Demurrer to Evidence The grant or
denial of a demurrer to evidence is left to the sound discretion of
the trial court, and its ruling on the matter shall not be disturbed
in the absence of a grave abuse of such discretionthe appellate
court will not review in a special civil action for certiorari the
prosecutions evidence and decide in advance that such evidence
has or has not yet established the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.The grant or denial of a demurrer to evidence
is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling on
the matter shall not be disturbed in the absence of a grave abuse
of such discretion. In this
329
329
case, the Court of Appeals did not find any grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the trial court, which based its denial of
the demurrer on two grounds: first, the prosecution established a
prima facie case for bigamy against the petitioner and second,
petitioners allegations in the demurrer were insufficient to justify
the grant of the same. It has been held that the appellate court
will not review in a special civil action for certiorari the
prosecutions evidence and decide in advance that such evidence
has or has not yet established the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. In view of the trial courts finding that a prima
facie case against petitioner exists, his proper recourse is to
adduce evidence in his defense.
Same Same Presumption of Innocence The trial courts
observation that there was a prima facie case against the accused
only meant that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence
to sustain its proposition that the accused had committed the
offense of bigamy, and unless he presents evidence to rebut the
same, such would be the conclusionsaid declaration by the trial
court should not be construed as a pronouncement of guilt.The
Court also finds it necessary to correct petitioners misimpression
that by denying his demurrer to evidence in view of the existence
of a prima facie case against him, the trial court was already
making a pronouncement that he is liable for the offense charged.
As correctly held by the Court of Appeals, the order of the RTC
denying the demurrer was not an adjudication on the merits but
merely an evaluation of the sufficiency of the prosecutions
evidence to determine whether or not a fullblown trial would be
necessary to resolve the case. The RTCs observation that there
3/16
9/21/2016
was a prima facie case against petitioner only meant that the
prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to sustain its
proposition that petitioner had committed the offense of bigamy,
and unless petitioner presents evidence to rebut the same, such
would be the conclusion. Said declaration by the RTC should not
be construed as a pronouncement of petitioners guilt. It was
precisely because of such finding that the trial court denied the
demurrer, in order that petitioner may present evidence in his
defense and allow said court to resolve the case based on the
evidence adduced by both parties.
Judges Disqualification and Inhibition of Judges Bias and
Partiality While bias and prejudice have been recognized as valid
reasons for the voluntary inhibition of a judge under Section 1,
Rule 137, the rudimentary rule is that the mere suspicion that a
judge is partial is not enough.We agree with the appellate court
that the grounds raised by petitioner against Judge Peralejo did
not conclusively show that the latter was biased and had
prejudged the case. In People of the Philippines vs. Court of
Appeals, this Court held that while bias and prejudice have been
recog
330
330

nized as valid reasons for the voluntary inhibition of a judge

under Section 1, Rule 137, the rudimentary rule is that the mere
suspicion that a judge is partial is not enough. There should be
clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge of bias and
partiality.
Same Same Same The test for determining the propriety of
the denial of a motion to inhibit is whether the movant was
deprived a fair and impartial trial.This Court does not find any
abuse of discretion by respondent judge in denying petitioners
motion to inhibit. The test for determining the propriety of the
denial of said motion is whether petitioner was deprived of a fair
and impartial trial. The instances when Judge Peralejo allegedly
exhibited antagonism and partiality against petitioner and/or his
counsel did not deprive him of a fair and impartial trial. As
discussed earlier, the denial by the judge of petitioners motion to
suspend the criminal proceeding and the demurrer to evidence
are in accord with law and jurisprudence. Neither was there
anything unreasonable in the requirement that petitioners
counsel submit a medical certificate to support his claim that he
suffered an accident which rendered him unprepared for trial.
Such requirement was evidently imposed upon petitioners
counsel to ensure that the resolution of the case was not
4/16
9/21/2016
hampered by unnecessary and unjustified delays, in keeping with

the judges duty to disposing of the courts business promptly.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Remigio D. Saladero, Jr. for petitioner.
Ongkiko, Kalaw, Manhit & Acorda Law Office for
private respondent.
KAPUNAN, J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari which seeks
to reverse the Decision of the Court of Appeals Tenth1
Division, dated 31 August 1994
in CAG.R. SP No. 23971
2
and CAG.R. SP No. 26178
________________
1
Arthur Te, Petitioner, vs. Hon. Cesar C. Peralejo as Judge, RTC of
Quezon City, Branch 98 and People of the Philippines, Respondents.

2
Arthur Te, Petition, vs. Board of Civil Engineering, Professional
Regulation Commission and Liliana Choa Te, Respondents.

331
331
and the Resolution dated October 18, 1996 denying

petitioners motion for reconsideration.
The facts of the case are as follows:
Petitioner Arthur Te and private respondent Liliana
Choa were married in civil rites on September 14, 1988.
They did not live together after the marriage although they
would meet each other regularly. Not long after private
respondent gave birth
to a girl on April 21, 1989, petitioner
3
stopped visiting her.
On May 20, 1990, while his marriage with private
respondent was subsisting, petitioner contracted
a second
4
marriage with a certain Julieta Santella.
On the basis of a complaintaffidavit filed by private
respondent sometime in June 1990, when she learned
about petitioners marriage to Santella, an information
charging petitioner with bigamy was filed with the
Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City on August 9,
5
1990. 6This case was docketed as Criminal Case No. Q90
14409.
Meanwhile, on July 20, 1990, petitioner filed in the RTC
of Quezon City an action for the annulment of his marriage
to private respondent on the ground that he was forced to
5/16
9/21/2016
marry her. He alleged that private respondent concealed

her pregnancy by another man at the time of their
marriage and that she was psychologically
incapacitated to
7
perform her essential marital obligations.
On November 8, 1990, private respondent 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 by living
together and subsequently marrying each other despite
their knowledge that at the time of their marriage,
________________
3
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 31, 1994, Rollo, p. 29.
Ibid.
Id., at 2930.
Records, Criminal Case No. Q9014409, p. 1.
Rollo, pp. 2930.

332
332

petitioner was already married to private respondent. With

respect to petitioner, private respondent added that he
committed an act of falsification by stating in 8his marriage
contract with Santella that he was still single.
After the prosecution rested its case in the criminal case
for bigamy, petitioner filed a demurrer to evidence with
leave of court and motion to inhibit the trial court judge for
showing antagonism and animosity towards petitioners
counsel during the hearings of said case.
The trial court denied petitioners demurrer to evidence
in an Order dated November 28, 1990 which stated that
the same could not be granted because the prosecution had
sufficiently
established a prima facie case against the
9
accused. The RTC also
denied petitioners motion to inhibit
10
for lack of legal basis.
Petitioner then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition
for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part
of the trial court judge, Judge Cezar C. Peralejo, for (1)
exhibiting antagonism and animosity towards petitioners
counsel (2) violating the requirements of due process by
denying petitioners [motion for reconsideration and]
demurrer to evidence even before the filing of the same (3)
disregarding and failing to comply with the appropriate
guidelines for judges promulgated by the Supreme Court
and (4) ruling that in a criminal case only prima facie
6/16
9/21/2016
evidence is sufficient for conviction of an11 accused. This

case was docketed as CAG.R. SP No. 23971.
Petitioner also filed with the Board of Civil Engineering
of the PRC (PRC Board), where the administrative case for
the revocation of his engineering license was pending, a
motion to suspend the proceedings therein in view of the
pendency of the civil case for annulment of his marriage to
private respondent and criminal case for bigamy in
Branches 106 and 98, respectively of the RTC of
________________
8
Id., at 30.
Records, Criminal Case No. Q9014409, p. 37.
10
Id., at 33.
11
Id., at 610.
333
333

12
Quezon City. When the Board13denied the said motion in

its Order dated July 16, 1991, petitioner filed with the
Court of Appeals another petition for certiorari, contending
that the Board gravely abused its discretion in: (1) failing
to hold that the resolution of the annulment case is
prejudicial to the outcome of the administrative case
pending before it (2) not holding that the continuation of
proceedings in the administrative case could render
nugatory petitioners right against selfincrimination in
this criminal case for bigamy against him and (3) making
an overlysweeping 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 in other courts or tribunals.
This petition
14
was docketed as CAG.R. SP No. 26178.
The two petitions for certiorari were consolidated since
they arose from the same set of facts.
On 31 August 1994, the Court of Appeals, Tenth
Division, rendered the assailed decision in the consolidated
petitions. The appellate court upheld the RTCs denial of
the motion to inhibit due to petitioners failure to show any
concrete evidence that the trial court judge exhibited
partiality and had prejudged the case. It also ruled that the
denial of petitioners motion to suspend the proceedings on
15
the ground of prejudicial question was in accord with law.
The Court of Appeals likewise affirmed the RTCs denial of
7/16
9/21/2016
the demurrer to evidence filed by petitioner for his failure

to set forth persuasive grounds to support the same,
considering that the prosecution was able to adduce
16
evidence showing the existence of the elements of bigamy.
________________
12
These cases were: (1) Arthur Te vs. Liliana ChoaTe, Civil Case No.
906265 for Annulment of Marriage, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,

Branch 106 and (2) People of the Philippines vs. Arthur Te, Criminal
Case No. Q9014409 for Bigamy, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
Branch 98.
13
Records, CAG.R. SP No. 26178, p. 15.
14
Records, CAG.R. SP No. 26178, pp. 610.
15
Decision of the Court of Appeals, Rollo, pp. 3334, 36.
16
Id., at 35.
334
334

Neither did the appellate court find grave abuse of

discretion on the part of the Boards Order denying
petitioners motion to suspend proceedings in the
administrative case on the ground of prejudicial question.
Respondent court held that no prejudicial question existed
since the action sought to be suspended is administrative
17
in nature, and the other action involved is a civil case.
Petitioner thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration of
the decision
of the Court of Appeals but the same was
18
denied.
Hence, petitioner filed the instant petition raising the
following issues:
I
PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED A SERIOUS ERROR IN
REFUSING TO SUSPEND THE LEGAL [CRIMINAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE]
PROCEEDINGS
DESPITE
THE
PENDENCY OF THE CIVIL CASE FOR DECLARATION OF
NULLITY OF MARRIAGE.
II
PUBLIC
RESPONDENT
GRAVELY
ABUSED
ITS
DISCRETION AND COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN NOT
HOLDING THAT THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE SHOULD
HAVE BEEN GIVEN DUE COURSE.
III
8/16
9/21/2016
PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED A SERIOUS LEGAL

ERROR IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE19TRIAL JUDGE A QUO
SHOULD HAVE INHIBITED HIMSELF.
The petition has no merit.

While the termination of Civil Case No. Q906205 for
annulment of petitioners marriage to private respondent
has rendered the issue of the propriety of suspending both
the criminal case for bigamy before the RTC of Quezon
City, Branch 98 and the admin
________________
17
Id., at 36.
18
Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated October 18, 1996, Id., at
103.
19
Petition, Id., at 1824.

335
335
istrative case for revocation of petitioners engineering

license before the PRC Board moot and academic, the
Court shall discuss the issue of prejudicial question to
emphasize
the guarding and controlling precepts and
20
rules.
A prejudicial question has been defined as 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
21
innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.
The rationale behind the principle of suspending a criminal
case in view of a 22prejudicial question is to avoid two
conflicting decisions.
The Court of Appeals did not err when it ruled that the
pendency of the civil case for annulment of marriage filed
by petitioner against private respondent did not pose a
prejudicial question which would necessitate that the
criminal case for bigamy be suspended until said civil case
is terminated.
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 the charge of bigamy to prosper is that the first
9/16
9/21/2016
marriage be
subsisting at the time the second marriage is
23
contracted. Petitioners argument that the nullity of his
marriage to private respondent had to be resolved first in
the civil case before the criminal proceedings could
continue, because a
________________
20
Salonga vs. Cruz Pao, 134 SCRA 438, 463 (1985).
21
Librodo vs. Coscolluela, Jr., 116 SCRA 303, 309310 (1982).
22
Carlos vs. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 25, 33 (1997) citing Tuanda
vs. Sandiganbayan, 249 SCRA 342 (1995).

23
The elements of the crime of bigamy are as follows: (1) the offender
has been legally married (2) the marriage has not been legally dissolved
(3) the offender contracts a second or subsequent marriage and (4) the
second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.
(REYES, LUIS B. THE REVISED PENAL CODE ANNOTATED, Vol. 2,
Thirteenth Edition, p. 828.)
336
336

declaration that their marriage was void ab initio would

necessarily absolve him from criminal 24liability, is
untenable. The
ruling in People vs. Mendoza and People
25
vs. Aragon cited by petitioner that no judicial decree is
necessary to establish the invalidity of a marriage which is
void ab initio has been overturned. The prevailing rule is
found in Article 40 of the Family Code, which was already
in effect at the time of petitioners marriage to private
respondent in September 1988. Said article states that the
absolute nullity of a previous marriage may not be invoked
for purposes of remarriage unless there is a final judgment
declaring such previous marriage void. Thus, under the
law, a marriage, even one which is void or voidable, shall
be deemed 26 valid until declared otherwise
in a judicial
27
proceeding. In Landicho vs. Relova, we held that:
Parties to a marriage should not be permitted to judge for
themselves its nullity, for this must be submitted to the judgment
of competent courts and only when the nullity of a marriage is so
declared can it be held as void, and so long as
there is no such
28
declaration the presumption of marriage exists.
It is clear from the foregoing that the pendency of the civil

case for annulment of petitioners marriage to private
respondent did not give rise to a prejudicial question which
warranted the suspension of the proceedings in the
criminal case for bigamy since at the time of the alleged
10/16
9/21/2016
commission of the crime, their marriage was, under the

law, still valid and subsisting.
Neither did the filing of said civil case for annulment
necessitate the suspension of the administrative
proceedings before the PRC Board. As discussed above, the
concept of prejudicial question involves a civil and a
criminal case. We have previously ruled that
________________
24
95 Phil. 843 (1954).
25
100 Phil. 1033 (1957).
26
Mercado vs. Tan, G.R. No. 137110, August 1, 2000, 337 SCRA 122
MarbellaBobis vs. Bobis, G.R. No. 138509, July 31, 2000, 336 SCRA 747,
Wiegel vs. SempioDiy, 143 SCRA 499, 501 (1986).
27
22 SCRA 731 (1968).
28
Id., at 734, citing 3 VIADA, PENAL CODE 275.

337
337
there is no prejudicial question 29 where one case is

administrative and the other is civil.
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 filing or pendency of a criminal and/or civil cases in the
courts or an administrative case in another judicial body against
an examinee or registered professional involving the same facts as
in the administrative case filed or to be filed before the Board
shall neither suspend nor bar the proceeding of the latter 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 quasijudicial body.
It must also be noted that the allegations in the

administrative complaint before the PRC Board are not
confined to the issue of the alleged bigamous marriage
contracted by petitioner and Santella. Petitioner is also
charged with immoral conduct for continued failure to
perform his obligations as husband to private respondent
and as father to their child, and for30 cohabiting with
Santella without the benefit of marriage. The existence of
11/16
9/21/2016
these other charges justified the continuation of the

proceedings before the PRC Board.
Petitioner also contends that the Court of Appeals erred
in upholding the trial courts denial of his demurrer to
evidence in the criminal case for bigamy, arguing that the
prosecution failed to establish the existence of both the first
and second marriages beyond reasonable doubt. Petitioner
claims that the original copy of marriage contract between
him and private respondent was not presented, the
signatures therein were not properly identified and there
was no showing that the requisites of a valid marriage
were complied with. He alleges further that the original
copy of the marriage contract between him and Santella
was not presented, that no proof that he signed said
contract was adduced, and that there
________________
29
Ocampo vs. Buenaventura, 55 SCRA 267, 271 (1974).
30
Records, CAG.R. SP No. 26178, pp. 1819.

338
338

was no witness presented to show that a second

marriage
31
ceremony participated in by him ever took place.
We are not persuaded. The grant or denial of a demurrer
to evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial court,
and its ruling on the matter shall not be disturbed
in the
32
absence of a grave abuse of such discretion. In this case,
the Court of Appeals did not find any grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the trial court, which based its
denial of the demurrer on two grounds: first, the
prosecution established a prima facie case for bigamy
against the petitioner and second, petitioners allegations
in the demurrer were insufficient to justify the grant of the
same. It has been held that the appellate court will not
review in a special civil action for certiorari the
prosecutions evidence and decide in advance that such
evidence has or has not yet established
the guilt of the
33
accused beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the trial
courts finding that a prima facie case against petitioner
exists, his
proper recourse is to adduce evidence in his
34
defense.
The Court also finds it necessary to correct petitioners
misimpression that by denying his demurrer to evidence in
view of the existence of a prima facie case against him, the
trial court was already making a pronouncement that he is
liable for the offense charged. As correctly held by the
12/16
9/21/2016
Court of Appeals, the order of the RTC denying the

demurrer was not an adjudication on the merits but merely
an evaluation of the sufficiency of the prosecutions
evidence to determine whether or not a fullblown
trial
35
would be necessary to resolve the case. The RTCs
observation that there was a prima facie case against
petitioner only meant that the prosecution had presented
sufficient evidence to sustain its proposition that petitioner
had committed the offense of bigamy, and unless petitioner
presents evidence to rebut the same, such would
________________
31
Petition, Rollo, pp. 2123.
32
People vs. Mercado, 159 SCRA 453, 459 (1988).
33
People vs. Cruz, 144 SCRA 677, 681 (1986).
34
Section 15, Rule 119, Revised Rules of Court.
35
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 23971 and CA
G.R. SP No. 26178, Rollo, pp. 3536.

339
339

36
be the conclusion. Said declaration by the RTC should not

be construed as a pronouncement of petitioners guilt. It
was precisely because of such finding that the trial court
denied the demurrer, in order that petitioner may present
evidence in his defense and allow said court to resolve the
case based on the evidence adduced by both parties.
Lastly, petitioner contends that his motion to inhibit
Judge Peralejo in Criminal Case No. Q9014409 should
have been granted since said judge exhibited partiality and
bias against him in several instances. First, when
petitioner manifested that he would file a motion for
reconsideration of the denial of his motion to suspend the
proceedings in said case, the judge said such motion was
dilatory and would be denied even though the motion for
reconsideration had not yet been filed. Second, when
petitioners counsel manifested that he had just recovered
from an accident and was not physically fit for trial, the
judge commented that counsel was merely trying to delay
the case and required said counsel to produce a medical
certificate to support his statement. Third, when petitioner
manifested that he was going to file a demurrer to
evidence, the judge characterized the same as dilatory and
declared that he would deny the same. According to
petitioner, the judges hostile attitude towards petitioners
counsel as shown in the foregoing instances justified the
grant of his motion to inhibit.
13/16
9/21/2016
We agree with the appellate court that the grounds

raised by petitioner against Judge Peralejo did not
conclusively show 37that the latter was biased and had
prejudged the
case. In People of the Philippines vs. Court
38
of Appeals, this Court held that while bias and prejudice
have been recognized as valid reasons for the voluntary
inhibition of a judge under Section 1, Rule 137, the
rudimentary rule is that the mere suspicion that a judge is
partial is not
________________
36
People vs. Nuque, 58 O.G. 8445 Salonga vs. Cruz Pao, supra note
20 at 450.
37
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 23971 and CA
G.R. SP No. 26178, Rollo, p. 33.

38
309 SCRA 705 (1999).

340
340

enough. There should be clear and convincing

evidence to
39
prove the charge of bias and partiality.
Furthermore, since the grounds raised by petitioner in
his motion to inhibit are not among those expressly
mentioned in Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of
Court, the decision to inhibit himself lay within the sound
discretion of Judge Peralejo. Said provision of law states:
Section 1. Disqualification of judges.No judge or judicial officer
shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child, is
pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in
which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of
consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree,
computed according to the rules of the civil law, or in which he
has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or
in which he has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or
decision is the subject of review, without the written consent of all
parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record.
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify
himself from sitting in the case, for just and valid reasons other
than those mentioned above.
Thus, it was not mandatory that the judge inhibit himself

from hearing and deciding the case.
This Court does not find any abuse of discretion by
respondent judge in denying petitioners motion to inhibit.
The test for determining the propriety of the denial of said
motion is whether
petitioner was deprived of a fair and
40
impartial trial. The instances when Judge Peralejo
14/16
9/21/2016
allegedly exhibited antagonism and partiality against

petitioner and/or his counsel did not deprive him of a fair
and impartial trial. As discussed earlier, the denial by the
judge of petitioners motion to suspend the criminal
proceeding and the demurrer to evidence are in accord with
law and jurisprudence. Neither was there anything
unreasonable in the requirement that petitioners counsel
submit a medical certificate to support his claim that he
suffered an accident which rendered him unprepared
________________
39
Id., at 709710.
40
Association de Agricultures de TalisaySilay, Inc. vs. TalisaySilay
Milling Co., Inc., 88 SCRA 294 (1979).

341
341
Rueda, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan
for trial. Such requirement was evidently imposed upon

petitioners counsel to ensure that the resolution of the case
was not hampered by unnecessary and unjustified delays,
in keeping with the41 judges duty to disposing of the courts
business promptly.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack
of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Puno, Pardo and
YnaresSantiago, JJ., concur.
Petition denied.
Notes.The legality of a marriage is a matter of law
and every person is presumed to know the law. (Marbella
Bobis vs. Bobis, 336 SCRA 747 [2000])
The pendency of a case for declaration of nullity of
marriage is not a prejudicial question to a concubinage
case. (Beltran vs. People, 334 SCRA 106 [2000])
o0o
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
15/16
9/21/2016
16/16

Te Vs CA PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Te Vs CA PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/21/2016

VOL. 346, NOVEMBER 29, 2000

Te vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 126746. November 29, 2000.

ARTHUR TE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, and

ruling in People vs. Mendoza and People vs. Aragon cited by

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

found in Article 40 of the Family Code, which was already in

Board shall proceed independently with the investigation of the

VOL. 346, NOVEMBER 29, 2000

Te vs. Court of Appeals

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

nized as valid reasons for the voluntary inhibition of a judge

hampered by unnecessary and unjustified delays, in keeping with

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Arthur Te, Petitioner, vs. Hon. Cesar C. Peralejo as Judge, RTC of

Quezon City, Branch 98 and People of the Philippines, Respondents.

Arthur Te, Petition, vs. Board of Civil Engineering, Professional

Regulation Commission and Liliana Choa Te, Respondents.

VOL. 346, NOVEMBER 29, 2000

Te vs. Court of Appeals

and the Resolution dated October 18, 1996 denying

marry her. He alleged that private respondent concealed

Records, Criminal Case No. Q9014409, p. 1.

Rollo, pp. 2930.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

petitioner was already married to private respondent. With

evidence is sufficient for conviction of an11 accused. This

Records, Criminal Case No. Q9014409, p. 37.

VOL. 346, NOVEMBER 29, 2000

Te vs. Court of Appeals

Quezon City. When the Board13denied the said motion in

the demurrer to evidence filed by petitioner for his failure

906265 for Annulment of Marriage, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,

Records, CAG.R. SP No. 26178, p. 15.

Records, CAG.R. SP No. 26178, pp. 610.

Decision of the Court of Appeals, Rollo, pp. 3334, 36.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Neither did the appellate court find grave abuse of

PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED A SERIOUS LEGAL

The petition has no merit.

Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated October 18, 1996, Id., at

Petition, Id., at 1824.

VOL. 346, NOVEMBER 29, 2000

Te vs. Court of Appeals

istrative case for revocation of petitioners engineering

Salonga vs. Cruz Pao, 134 SCRA 438, 463 (1985).

Librodo vs. Coscolluela, Jr., 116 SCRA 303, 309310 (1982).

vs. Sandiganbayan, 249 SCRA 342 (1995).

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

declaration that their marriage was void ab initio would

It is clear from the foregoing that the pendency of the civil

commission of the crime, their marriage was, under the

95 Phil. 843 (1954).

100 Phil. 1033 (1957).

22 SCRA 731 (1968).

Id., at 734, citing 3 VIADA, PENAL CODE 275.

VOL. 346, NOVEMBER 29, 2000

Te vs. Court of Appeals

there is no prejudicial question 29 where one case is

It must also be noted that the allegations in the

these other charges justified the continuation of the

Ocampo vs. Buenaventura, 55 SCRA 267, 271 (1974).