(14)

PIMENTEL VS PIMENTEL
G.R. No. 172060
September 13, 2010

FACTS:
On October 25, 2004 respondent, Maria Chrysantine L. Pimentel, filed a criminal action
against petitioner, Joselito R. Pimentel, for frustrated parricide, which was raffled to the RTC of
QC. On February 7, 2005, summons were given to petitioner for a civil case filed against him for
the Declaration of Nillity of Marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity (Sec.36 Fam
Code), before the RTC of Antipopo City.

According to petitioner, the outcome of the civil case would have a bearing in the criminal
case forst filed, since the relationship between the parties is a key element in parricide.
Prompting petitioner to file an urgent motion to suspend the 1st mentioned crim proceedings on
the ground of a PREJUDICIAL QUESTION before the RTC of QC.

ISSUE:
WON the resolution of the action for annulment of marriage is a prejudicial question that
warrants the suspension of the criminal case against petitioner

RULING:
No, it is not a prejudicial question.

Elements of a prejudicial question as provided by Sec. 7, Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure provides that (1) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or
intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action; (2) the resolution of such
issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed; (3) and the jurisdiction to try
said question must be lodged in another tribunal.

In the case given, the civil case for annulment was filed after the filing of the criminal case for
frustrated parricide. The issue on both cases is not similar or intimately related and the
relationship between parties is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Moreover, petitioner and respondent were married at the time of the commission of the crime.

Hence, petition is denied.

(15)
TOMLIN II VS ATTY. MOYA II
A.C. No. 6971
February 23, 2006

FACTS:
Complainant, Quirino Tomlin II, filed a complaint before the Commission on Bar Discopline
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Salvador Moya II, for violating the
Code of Professional Responsibility and B.P. 22.

According to complainant, respondent borrowed from him P600,000 partially covered by 7

postdated checks, that were dishonored by the drawee bank. Despite several demands for
payment, the last being a formal letter, respondent still failed and refused to pay. Hence,
complaint filed before the MTC for violation of BP 22 and for respondents disbarrment.

Respondent, filed several motions for extension of time to file responsive pleading. Moreover,
he argued that it it’s a form of harassment to file an administrative case at the pendency of the
criminal case filed against him.

ISSUE:
WON the criminal proceeding should be suspended on the ground of prejudicial question.

RULING:
No. Prejudicial question involves a previously instituted civil case and a subsequent criminal
case, administrative cases against lawyers are distinct and may proceed independently of
criminal cases. Moreover, the main object of the criminal cases on the violation of BP 22 is
different and far from the issue of the administrative case at hand.

Hence, respondent is suspended from the practice of law for 2 years.

(16)
GELUZ VS CA
G.R. No. L-16439
July 20, 1961

FACTS:
Nita Villanueva, the wife of Oscar lazo, respondent, came to know Antonio Geluz, the
petitioner and physician, through her aunt Paula Yambot. Sometime in 1950, Nita became
pregnant before she and Oscar were legally married. Following her aunt’s advice, she concealed
it from her parents and decided to have it aborted by Geluz. On October 1953, Nita had another
abortion since she found it inconvenient as she was employed at COMELEC. After two years, on
February 21, 1955, she again became pregnant and was accompanied by her sister Purificacion
and the latter’s daughter Lucida at Geluz’ clinic. Oscar at this time was in the province of
Cagayan campaigning for his election to the provincial board. He doesn’t have any idea nor
given his consent on the abortion.

ISSUE:
Whether husband of a woman, who voluntarily procured her abortion, could recover damages
from the physician who caused the same.

HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled that the minimum award fixed at P3,000 for the death of a person
does not cover cases of an unborn fetus that is not endowed with personality which trial court
and Court of Appeals predicated.

Both trial court and CA wasn’t able to find any basis for an award of moral damages evidently
because Oscar’s indifference to the previous abortions of Nita clearly indicates he was
unconcerned with the frustration of his parental affections. Instead of filing an administrative or
criminal case against Geluz, he turned his wife’s indiscretion to personal profit and filed a civil
action for damages of which not only he but, including his wife would be the beneficiaries. It
shows that he’s after obtaining a large money payment since he sued Geluz for P50,000 damages
and P3,000 attorney’s fees that serves as indemnity claim, which under the circumstances was
clearly exaggerated.