ARTHUR TE, petitioner, vs.
CA: On RTCs decisions upheld denial of motion to inhibit and denial of
COURT OF APPEALS, and LILIANA CHOA, respondents.
November 29, 2000 | Kapunan, J.
DOCTRINE: 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 this principle of suspending a criminal case in view of a prejudicial question
is to avoid two conflicting decisions.
SUMMARY: Arthur Te and Liliana Choa were married. They did not live
together after the marriage but would meet each other regularly. When Choa
gave birth, Te stopped visiting her. Te then married Julieta Santella. Choa
charged him with bigamy (criminal case), and filed a case with the PRC for
the revocation of the engineering licenses of Te and Santella
(administrative case). Te filed an action for annulment of marriage (civil
case). Te argued that the criminal and administrative cases should be
suspended because of the pendency of the civil case. The Court held that the
pendency of the civil case did not pose a prejudicial question which
would warrant the suspension of the criminal and administrative case
basing it on the doctrine cited above.
FACTS:
Arthur Te and Liliana Choa were married. Te subsequently married Julieta
Santella. Choa charged him with bigamy (criminal case), and filed a case
with the PRC for the revocation of the engineering licenses of Te and
Santella (administrative case) on the ground that they committed acts of
immorality by living together and subsequently marrying each other
despite knowledge that petitioner was already married.
Te filed an action for annulment of marriage (civil case) on the ground
that he was forced to marry Choa. He alleged that she concealed her
pregnancy by another man and that she was psychologically
incapacitated.
After the prosecution rested its case for bigamy, petitioner filed a
demurrer to evidence with leave of court and motion to inhibit the
RTC judge for showing antagonism and animosity towards Te.
Te also filed before the Board of Civil Engineering of the PRC, a motion
to suspend the proceedings in view of the pendency of the civil case for
annulment of his marriage to Choa and criminal case for bigamy.
RTC: denied demurrer to evidence, denied petitioners motion to inhibit
(alleging grave abuse of discretion by the judge) for lack of legal basis
PRC Board: denied the motion to suspend proceedings
demurrer; On PRC Boards decisions upheld denial of motion to suspend
proceedings
ISSUE: WON the criminal and administrative case should be suspended in
view of the pendency of the civil case for declaration of nullity of marriage
RULING: NO.
Using the doctrine cited, the Court ruled that the pendency of the civil case
did not pose a prejudicial question which would necessitate that the
criminal case for bigamy or the administrative case be suspended until
said civil case is terminated.
o The outcome of the civil case for annulment 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. (Article 40 of FC)
o The concept of prejudicial question involves a civil and a criminal case.
There is no prejudicial question where one case is administrative
and the other is civil.
o Section 32 of the Rules 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.
o Allegations in the administrative case are not confined to the issue
of the alleged bigamous marriage. Petitioner is also charged with
immoral conduct for continued failure to perform his obligations as
husband and as a father, and for cohabiting with Santella without the
benefit of marriage.
OTHER CRIM PRO TOPIC: Demurrer of 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 discretion. 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. 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
full-blown trial would be necessary to resolve the case.
OTHER CRIM PRO TOPIC: Disqualification of judges; The judges acts
did not conclusively show that the latter was biased and had prejudged the
case. 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. The grounds raised by petitioner in his
motion to inhibit are not among those mentioned in Section 1, Rule 137
of the ROC
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.