ISSUE NO.

Whether or not the civil case for judicial nullification of Lucios first marriage posed a
prejudicial question in the bigamy case.

DISCUSSION:

Yes. The pending civil case for the declaration of nullity of his marriage to Lucia
qualifies as a preducial question. Therefore arraignment in the criminal case of bigamy is
possible of suspension on said ground.

Prejudicial question is found in Section 6, Rule 111 of the 2000 Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, which states that:

A petition for suspension of the criminal action

based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil
action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the
court conducting the preliminary investigation. When the
criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition
to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any
time before the prosecution rests.

As can be gleaned from above, a petition for suspension of the criminal action based on
the existence of prejudicial question may be raised either during the preliminary investigation
stage before the prosecutor conducting the same or during the pendency of a criminal trial where
it is filed before the court hearing the case.

Jurisprudence has also defined a prejudicial question as that which 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 prejudicial question must be determinative of the case
before the court but the jurisdiction to try and resolve the question must be lodged in another
court or tribunal. It is a question 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. (See Rojas
vs. People, 57 SCRA 246; People vs. Aragon, 94 Phil. 357; Zapanta vs. Montessa, 4 SCRA 510
and Benitez vs. Concepcion, 2 SCRA 178)

The elements of a prejudicial questions are enumerated under Section 7, Rule 111 of the
2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, these are:

(a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue

similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent
criminal action, and

(b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not

the criminal action may proceed.

If both civil and criminal cases have similar issues or the issue in one is intimately related
to the issues raised in the other, then a prejudicial question would likely exist, provided the other
element or characteristic is satisfied. For example, in a criminal case for bigamy, the accused
may raise the pendency of a civil suit for the declaration of nullity of his first marriage to defer
the proceedings of the bigamy case, in reference to the case against Lucio.

The first element is met that the civil case, specifically the nullity case, previously filed
by Lucio, involves that issue which is similar or intimatelyn related to the said issue raised in the
subsequent criminal action, which was the bigamy case filed against him. In reference to the 1st
element of bigamy which states:

The elements of the crime of bigamy are:

1. the offender has been legally married;

xxx

In the case at hand, Lucio was married to Lucia without a marriage ceremony taking
place, thereby lacking the formal requisite of marriage which requires such ceremony. Moreover,
it was even ruled out that the marriage between Lucio and Lucia was already void ab initio,
meaning it was not valid from the very beginning. This conclusively states that there had been no
marriage between the two, effectively negating the first requisite of bigamy which provides that
the offender has been legally married. No marriage in the eyes of the law took place between
them, thus no bigamy could ever be committed in this instance.

Assuming that the pending nullity case has not yet been decided, it should most definitely
allow the suspension of the arraignment relative to the criminal case for the reason that the
bigamy case against him relies on the end result or judgment of the said pending civil case. The
court may declare the first marriage as still valid or void from the very beginning. It therefore
opens up the possibility of the positive outcome in favor of Lucio where his first marriage would
be declared void and that the bigamy case could be of no support against him. This probability of
being declared void ab initio should be taken into consideration for Lucio, and it indeed rests on
valid and logical grounds. He should not be prosecuted for the said crime when the essential
elements of said crime is still doubtful or unsure. By these reasons, the second element is also
complied with.

However, mere similarity of issues does not suffice to uphold the validity of a prejudical
question. It must appear not only that the civil case involves the same facts upon which the
criminal prosecution would be based, but also that the resolution of the issues raised in the civil
action would be necessarily determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused. If the
resolution of the issue in the civil action will not determine the criminal responsibility of the
accused in the criminal action based on the same facts, or there is no necessity - that the civil
case be determined first before taking up the criminal case. Therefore, the civil case does not
involve a prejudicial question. Neither is there a prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal
action can, according to law, proceed independently of each other.

It must be remembered however, that a prejudicial question does not conclusively resolve
the guilt or innocence of the accused but simply tests the sufficiency of the allegations in the
information in order to sustain the further prosecution of the criminal case. A party who raises a
prejudicial question is deemed to have hypothetically admitted that all the essential elements of a
crime have been adequately alleged in the information, considering that the prosecution has not
yet presented a single evidence on the indictment or may not yet have rested its case. A challenge
of the allegations in the information on the ground of prejudicial question is in effect a question
on the merits of the criminal charge through a non-criminal suit.