Joselito R. Pimentel, petitioner vs Maria Chrysantine L.

Pimentel and the People of the Philippines,

respondents.
GR. No. 172060 September 13, 2010
FACTS: On October 25, 2004, Maria Chrysantine Pimentel y Lacap (private respondent) filed an action for
frustrated parricide against Joselito R. Pimentel (petitioner and husband of the private respondent) before the
RTC of Quezon City. Petitioner also received summons for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground
of psychological incapacity which then petitioner filed an urgent motion to suspend the proceedings of the
criminal case on the ground of the existence of prejudicial question. The RTC ruled on May 13, 2005 that the
case was not of prejudicial question and was denied due to lack of merit. Petitioner appealed but was denied
by RTC dated August 22, 2005, which was followed by a petition for certiorari with application for a writ of
preliminary injunction and or temporary restraining order before the Court of Appeals, assailing orders (May
13 and August 22)of the RTC Quezon City. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. The CA ruled that
even if marriage between petitioner and respondent would be void, it would be immaterial to the criminal
case of frustrated parricide. Petitioner filed petition for review, hence this case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the resolution of the action for annulment of marriage is a prejudicial question that
warrants the suspension of the criminal case for frustrated parricide
RULING: No. The elements of Prejudicial Question are (1) the previously instituted civil action involves
an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action. The case
however, shows that the criminal case was filed first, then was followed by the summons for the Declaration
of Nullity of Marriage (civil case). The rule was clear that civil action must be instituted first before filing of
the criminal action. (2) the resolution of each issue determines whether or not the criminal action may
proceed. The relationship between the offender and the victim distinguishes the crime of parricide from
murder or homicide. However, the issue of both cases are entirely different. In this case, the petitioner was
charged of frustrated parricide the issue is whether or not he performed all the acts of execution which would
have killed respondent as a consequence but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes
independent of petitioner's will. The subsequent dissolution of their marriage is granted, will have no effect
on the alleged crime that was committed at the time of the subsistence of the marriage. In short, the nullity of
the marriage will not affect the criminal liability of the petitioner. Therefore, the petition was DENIED. And
the decision of the CA was AFFIRMED.
Notes: Prejudicial Question: defined as one that arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical
antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. The
rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting questions.