PREJUDICIAL QUESTION CASES

1. (petitioner) DONATO vs LUNA(Judge of CFI)

FACTS:
NOT A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION:
Bigamy was filed first before civil case by Abayan.
The one who filed for nullity is not the accused in bigamy
The accused’s defense of violence etc is not well-founded
Accused want to void the 2nd marriage

 Paz Abayan (2nd wife) filed an information for Bigamy against petitioner Leonilo
Donato.

 Abayanfiledwith the Juvenile and Domest ic Relations Court a civil act

ion f or declaration of nullit y of marriage to petitioner because of a prior
marriage of petitioner. Said civil case was based on the ground that Paz
consented to entering into the marriage which was Donato’s second since she
had no previous knowledge that Donato was already married to a certain
Rosalinda Maluping on June 30, 1978

 In his answer Donato claimed that his 2nd marriage was void because it was
solemnized without a valid marriage license and that violence, intimation and
undue influence were employed by Paz to obtain his consent .

 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.

 Prior to the date set for the trial of the criminal case, petitioner filed a
motion to suspend the proceedings of the case because the civil action raises a
prejudicial question which must first bedetermined before the criminal case can proceed
.
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:

NO.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.3 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 or
innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.

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'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.

Another event which militates against petitioner's contentions is the fact hat 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.

2. ZAPANTA vs MONTESA

Facts:
PREJUDICIAL QUESTION
2nd wife filed a case of bigamy
The accused was the one that filed for the nullity of 2nd marriage.
The cases are lodged in different tribunals

 May 20 1958 --- Olimpia Yco (2nd wife) filed a criminal case in Bulacan against
Zapanta alleging that the latter, having previously married one Estrella Guarin,
and without said marriage having been dissolved, contracted a second marriage
with said complainant.
 On June 16, 1958 --- Zapanta filed a Civil Case No. 1446 in Pampanga against
Olimpia A. Yco for the annulment of their marriage on the ground of duress, force
and intimidation.

Issue: whether a prejudicial question exists?

Ruling:
The prejudicial question — we further said — must be determinative of the case
before the court, and jurisdiction to try the same must be lodged in another court
(People vs. Aragon, supra). These requisites are present in the case at bar. Should
the question for annulment of the second marriage pending in the Court of First Instance
of Pampanga prosper on the ground that, according to the evidence, petitioner's consent
thereto was obtained by means of duress, force and intimidation, it is obvious that his act
was involuntary and can not be the basis of his conviction for the crime of bigamy with
which he was charged in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. Thus, the issue involved
in he action for the annulment of the second marriage is determinative of petitioner's guilt
or innocence of the crime of bigamy.

LANDICHO vs RELOVA

Facts:
NOT A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION
2nd wife(Pasia) filed for bigamy then annulment against husband
Husband(landicho) filed a thirdd party complaint for annulment of marriage with
1st wife(Makatangay)
Same tribunal same judge
 On February 27, 1963 ------ Rolando Landicho 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 (1st wife) 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 -----Pasia filed a case 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 a prejudicial question exists?

Ruling:
NO.he situation in this 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. Then on March 15, 1963, it
was the second spouse, not petitioner who filed an action for nullity on the
ground of force, threats and intimidation. It was sometime later, on June 15, 1963,
to be precise, when 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. As was
correctly stressed in the answer of respondent Judge relying on Viada, parties to a
marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, only
competent courts having such authority. Prior to such declaration of nullity, the
validity of the first marriage is beyond question. A party who contracts a
second marriage then assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy

Such was the situation of petitioner. There is no occasion to indulge in the probability
that the third-party complaint against the first wife brought almost five months after the
prosecution for bigamy was started could have been inspired by the thought that he
could thus give color to a defense based on an alleged prejudicial question. The
above judicial decisions as well as the opinion of Viada preclude a finding that
respondent Judge abused, much less gravely abused, his discretion in failing to
suspend the hearing as sought by petitioner.