Facts:

On February 27, 1963, petitioner was charged before the Court of First Instance
of Batangas, Branch I, presided over by respondent Judge, with the offense, of bigamy.
It was alleged in the information that petitioner "being then lawfully married to Elvira
Makatangay, which marriage has not been legally dissolved, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously contract a second marriage with Fe Lourdes Pasia." On
March 15, 1963, an action was filed before the Court of First Instance of Batangas,
likewise presided plaintiff respondent Judge Fe Lourdes Pasia, seeking to declare her
marriage to petitioner as null and void ab initio because of the alleged use of force,
threats and intimidation allegedly employed by petitioner and because of its allegedly
bigamous character. On June 15, 1963, petitioner as defendant in said case, filed a
third-party
complaint,
against
the
third-party
defendant
Elvira Makatangay, the first spouse, praying that his marriage with the said third-party
defendant be declared null and void, on the ground that by means of threats, force and
intimidation, she compelled him to appear and contract marriage with her before the
Justice of the Peace of Makati, Rizal.
Issue: Whether or not the civil case filed is a prejudicial question.
Ruling:
Where the first wife filed a criminal action for bigamy against the husband, and
later the second wife filed a civil case for annulment of the marriage on the ground of
force and intimidation, and the husband later files a civil case for annulment of marriage
against the first wife, the civil cases are not prejudicial questions in the determination of
his criminal liability for bigamy, since his consent to the second marriage is not in issue.
"The mere fact that there are actions to annul the marriages entered into by 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 petitioner's consent to such marriage must be the
one that was 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, 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
later that petitioner as defendant in the civil action, filed a third party 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 the first marriage was null and
void on the ground alleged by petitioner, that 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 a competent

court 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."