Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
held Mrs. Cerezo solely liable for the 1.Whether Fronda is an indispensable party to
damages sustained by Tuazon arising from Tuazon’s action for damages against
the negligence of Mrs. Cerezos employee, Mrs.Cerezo thus requring the court’s
pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil Code jurisdiction over his person to enable rendition
which states in part: of a valid judgment.
“Employers shall be liable for the damages
caused by their employees and household RULING:
helpers acting within the scope of their
NO. Foronda is not an indispensable party to the damage. While the employer is civilly
the case liable in a subsidiary capacity for the
employees criminal negligence, the
An indispensable party is one whose interest employer is also civilly liable directly and
is affected by the courts action in the separately for his own civil negligence in
litigation, and without whom no final failing to exercise due diligence in selecting
resolution of the case is possible. and supervising his employee. The idea that
the employers liability is solely subsidiary is
The same negligent act may produce civil wrong.
liability arising from a delict under Article
103 of the Revised Penal Code, or may give The action can be brought directly against
rise to an action for a quasi-delict under the person responsible for another,
Article 2180 of the Civil Code. without including the author of the act.
The action for responsibility of the
An aggrieved party may choose between the employer is in itself a principal action
two remedies. An action based on a quasi-
delict may proceed independently from the In contrast, an action based on a delict
criminal action. seeks to enforce the subsidiary liability of
the employer for the criminal negligence
Mrs. Cerezos contention proceeds from the of the employee as provided in Article 103
point of view of criminal law and not of civil of the Revised Penal Code. To hold the
law. The basis of the present action of employer liable in a subsidiary capacity
Tuazon is quasi-delict under the Civil Code, under a delict, the aggrieved party must
not delict under the Revised Penal Code initiate a criminal action where the
The responsibility of two or more persons employees delict and corresponding
who are liable for a quasi-delict is primary liability are established. If the
solidary. Where there is a solidary present action proceeds from a delict, then
obligation on the part of debtors, as in this the trial courts jurisdiction over Foronda is
case, each debtor is liable for the entire necessary. However, the present action is
obligation. Hence, each debtor is liable to clearly for the quasi-delict of Mrs. Cerezo
pay for the entire obligation in full. There is and not for the delict of Foronda.
no merger or renunciation of rights, but only Thus, there is no need in this case for the
mutual representation. Where the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over
obligation of the parties is solidary, either Foronda. The trial courts acquisition of
of the parties is indispensable, and the jurisdiction over Mrs. Cerezo is sufficient to
other is not even a necessary party dispose of the present case on the merits.
because complete relief is available from
either. We hold that the trial court had jurisdiction
and was competent to decide the case in favor
Moreover, an employers liability based on of Tuazon and against Mrs. Cerezo even in
a quasi-delict is primary and direct, while the absence of Foronda. Contrary to Mrs.
the employers liability based on a delict is Cerezos contention, Foronda is not an
merely subsidiary. Although liability indispensable party to the present case. It is
under Article 2180 originates from the not even necessary for Tuazon to reserve the
negligent act of the employee, the filing of a separate civil action because he
aggrieved party may sue the employer opted to file a civil action for damages against
directly. When an employee causes Mrs. Cerezo who is primarily and directly
damage, the law presumes that the liable for her own civil negligence.
employer has himself committed an act of
negligence in not preventing or avoiding
4) MARY ANN RODRIGUEZ vs. Hon. pending before this Court is deemed instituted
THELMA A. PONFERRADA, in Her with the criminal action . The offended party
Official Capacity as Presiding Judge of the may thus intervene by counsel in the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, prosecution of the offense (Rule 110. Sec. 16).
Branch 104; PEOPLE OF THE
The appearance of a private prosecutor is
PHILIPPINES; and GLADYS NOCOM
allowed upon payment of the legal fees for
ANTECEDENT FACTS these estafa cases pending before this Court
pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 141 of the Rules
Separate informations were separately filed
of Court, as amended.Considering that the
against petitioner Rodriguez before the proper
offended party had paid the corresponding
courts, for Estafa and violation of Batas
filing fee for the estafa cases prior to the filing
Pambansa Blg. 22
of the BP 22 cases with the (MeTC), the RTC
The informations for violation of BP. 22 against allowed the private prosecutor to appear and
were filed and raffled to the MeTC of Quezon intervene in the proceedings.
City. On the other hand, the informations for
ISSUE:
estafa cases were filed and raffled to the RTC
of Quezon City. Whether or not a private prosecutor can be
allowed to intervene and participate in the
The public respondent court (RTC) issued an
proceedings of the above-entitled estafa cases
Order allowing the appearance of the private
for the purpose of prosecuting the attached civil
prosecutor in the above-entitled criminal cases
liability arising from the issuance of the checks
upon payment of the legal fees
involved which is also subject mater of the
Petitioner opposed the private prosecutor’s pending B.P. 22 cases.
entry of appearance. She contends that the
RULING:
private prosecutor is barred from appearing
before this Court (RTC) as his appearance is YES.
limited to the civil aspect which must be
presented and asserted in B.P. 22 cases pending Settled is the rule that the single act of
before the MeTC of Quezon City. Petitioner issuing a bouncing check may give rise to
theorizes that the civil action necessarily arising two distinct criminal offenses: estafa and
from the criminal case pending before the violation of BP 22.
MeTC for violation of BP 22 precludes the
institution of the corresponding civil action in ELECTION OF REMEDY. "In its broad
the criminal case for estafa now pending before sense, election of remedies refers to the
choice by a party to an action of one of
the RTC
two or more coexisting remedial rights,
TRIAL COURT: allowed the private where several such rights arise out of the
prosecutor to appear and intervene in the same facts. In its more restricted and
proceedings. technical sense, the election of remedies is
the adoption of one of two or more
Considering that the prosecution under B.P. 22 coexisting ones, with the effect of
is without prejudice to any liability for violation precluding a resort to the others.
of any provision of the Revised Penal Code (BP
22, Sec. 5), the civil action for the recovery of As a technical rule of procedure, the
the civil liability arising from the estafa cases purpose of the doctrine of election of
remedies is not to prevent recourse to None of these exceptions apply to the instant
any remedy, but to prevent double case. Hence, the private prosecutor cannot
redress for a single wrong. However, be barred from intervening in the estafa suit.
when a certain state of facts under the Civil Action in BP 22 Case Not a Bar
law entitles a party to alternative to Civil Action in Estafa Case .the
remedies, both founded upon the institution of the civil actions with the
identical state of facts, these remedies estafa cases and the inclusion of another
are not considered inconsistent set of civil actions with the BP 22 cases are
remedies. In such case, the invocation of not exactly repugnant or inconsistent with
one remedy is not an election which will each other. Nothing in the Rules signifies
bar the other, unless the suit upon the that the necessary inclusion of a civil
remedy first invoked shall reach the action in a criminal case for violation of
stage of final adjudication or unless by the Bouncing Checks Law precludes the
the invocation of the remedy first sought institution in an estafa case of the
to be enforced, the plaintiff shall have corresponding civil action, even if both
gained an advantage thereby or caused offenses relate to the issuance of the same
detriment or change of situation to the check.
other. It must be pointed out that The crimes of estafa and violation of BP 22
ordinarily, election of remedies is not are different and distinct from each other.
made until the judicial proceedings has There is no identity of offenses involved, for
gone to judgment on the merits. which legal jeopardy in one case may be
No binding election occurs before a invoked in the other. The offenses charged
decision on the merits is had or a in the informations are perfectly distinct
detriment to the other party from each other in point of law, however
supervenes. This is because the principle of nearly they may be connected in point of
election of remedies is discordant with the fact.
modern procedural concepts embodied in the The fact that the Rules do not allow the
Code of Civil Procedure which permits a reservation of civil actions in BP 22 cases
party to seek inconsistent remedies in his cannot deprive private complainant of the
claim for relief without being required to right to protect her interests in the criminal
elect between them at the pleading stage of action for estafa. Nothing in the current law
the litigation. or rules on BP 22 vests the jurisdiction of the
corresponding civil case exclusively in the
Based on the rules (Rules 110 and 111 of the court trying the BP 22 criminal case.
ROC), an offended party may intervene in In promulgating the Rules, this Court did not
the prosecution of a crime, except in the intend to leave the offended parties without
following instances: (1) when, from the any remedy to protect their interests in estafa
nature of the crime and the law defining and cases.
punishing it, no civil liability arises in favor
of a private offended party; and (2) when, The trial court was, therefore, correct in
from the nature of the offense, the offended holding that the private prosecutor may
parties are entitled to civil indemnity, but (a) intervene before the RTC in the proceedings
they waive the right to institute a civil for estafa, despite the necessary inclusion of
action, (b) expressly reserve the right to do the corresponding civil action in the
so or (c) the suit has already been instituted. proceedings for violation of BP 22 pending
In any of these instances, the private before the MTC. A recovery by the offended
complainant’s interest in the case disappears party under one remedy, however,
and criminal prosecution becomes the sole necessarily bars that under the other.
function of the public prosecutor. Obviously stemming from the fundamental
rule against unjust enrichment,this is in The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. It
essence the rationale for the proscription in ruled that since the act complained of arose
our law against double recovery for the same from the alleged non-payment of the petitioner
act or omission. of its contractual debt, and not the issuance of
checks with insufficient funds, in accordance
with Article 31 of the Civil Code, the civil
5) HYATT INDUSTRIAL action could proceed independently of the
MANUFACTURING CORP., Petitioners, criminal actions. It said that Section 1(b) of
v. Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
ASIA DYNAMIC ELECTRIX CORP. and Procedure does not apply to the obligation in
COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents. this case, it being ex-contractu and not ex-
G.R. No. 163597, July 29, 2005, PUNO, J.: delicto.
CA:
RTC: Granted FEBTC’s appeal
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) did not Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal did
find Kai Chin to be a credible witness. not preclude recovery of civil indemnity
According to the RTC, FEBTCs records based on a quasi delict.
showed that, contrary to his testimony, he The outcome of the criminal case, whether
had expressly authorized petitioner to conviction or acquittal, was inconsequential
transact matters concerning Chemical in adjudging civil liability arising from the
Banks account. same act that could also be considered a
The RTC added that the allegedly quasi delict.
fraudulent transactions had occurred from Moreover, FEBTC did not have to reserve
September 1992 to June 1993, with the use its right to file a separate civil action for
of documents bearing the signatures of damages, because the law had already made
other officials and employees of that reservation on respondents behalf.
respondent. In other words, all the Contrary to the trial courts clarifications in
questioned transactions had been approved its March 20, 1996 Order, petitioner had
and allowed by the bank officials been acquitted merely on reasonable
concerned, despite apparent procedural doubt arising from insufficiency of
infirmities. Yet, only petitioner was evidence to establish her identity as
indicted. perpetrator of the crime. Her acquittal
FOR ALL THE FOREGOING was not due to the nonexistence of the
CONSIDERATIONS, the Court finds and crime for which civil liability could arise.
so holds that the prosecution failed to CA nonetheless found petitioner liable for
prove the culpability of the accused in her failure to turn over to respondent the
any of these cases with moral certainty, proceeds of the checks. The failure
and consequently acquits her from all the supposedly constituted an actionable fraud
charges, with costs de oficio. Her bail CA ordered petitioner to pay
bonds are released and the hold departure respondent P1,187,530.86 as actual
order as well as the order of attachment are damages, representing the value of the
lifted. checks that had been paid in her name and
to her account.
Whether or not private respondents can When Yap learned the second sale, she filed a
continue to exercise their right of
complaint for estafa against Patas and Saya-
possession is but a necessary, logical
consequence of the issue involved in the ang and on the same date, filed a complaint for
pending administrative case assailing the nullification of the said sale witht he RTC
the validity of the cancellation of the of General Santos City.
Agreement to Sell and the subsequent
award of the disputed portion to
petitioner. If the cancellation of the Provincial Prosecutor instituted a criminal case
Agreement to Sell and the subsequent with the MTC of Glan-Malapatan, presided by
award to petitioner are voided, then Judge Alfredo D. Barcelonna, Sr. He further
private respondents would have every motu proprio issued an order disissing the
right to eject petitioner from the criminal case on the ground that there is a
disputed area. Otherwise, private
prejudicial question to a civil action,w hich
respondent's light of possession is lost
must be ventilated in the proper civil court.
and so would their right to eject
petitioner from said portion.
Issue: Whether or not in cases involving In the Ras case, there was a motion to suspend
prejudicial question, the criminal case must the criminal action on the ground that the
only be suspended, and not dismissed (YES) defense in the civil case — forgery of his
signature in the first deed of sale — had to be
threshed out first. Resolution of that question
Ruling: YES. A prejudicial question is defined would necessarily resolve the guilt or innocence
as that which arises in a case the resolution of of the accused in the criminal case. By contrast,
which is a logical antecedent of the issue there was no motion for suspension in the case
involved therein, and the congnizance of which at bar; and no less importantly, the respondent
pertains to another tribunal. The prejudicial judge had not been informed of the defense
question must be determinative of the case Paras was raising in the civil action. Judge
before the court but the jurisdiction to try and Barcelona could not have ascertained then if the
resolve the question must be lodged in another issue raised in the civil action would determine
court or tribunal. It is a question based on a fact the guilt or innocence of the accused in the
distinct and separate from the crime but so criminal case.
intimately connected with it that it determines
the guilt or innocence of the accused.
The order dismissing the criminal action
without a motion for suspension in
accordance with Rule 111, Section 6, of
We have held that "for a civil case to be
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure
considered prejudicial to a criminal
as amended, and even without the
action as to cause the suspension of the
accused indicating his defense in the
criminal action pending the
civil case for the annulment of the
determination of the civil action, it must
second sale, suggests not only ignorance
appear not only that the civil case
of the law but also bias on the part of
involves the same facts upon which the
the respondent judge.
criminal prosecution is based, but also
that the resolution of the issues raised in
said civil action would be necessarily Judge Alfredo D. Barcelona, Sr. is
determinative of the guilt or innocence sternly reminded that under the Code of
of the accused". Judicial Conduct, "a judge shall be
faithful to the law and maintain The defendants refused to pay the rentals; that
professional competence" and "should the incumbent mayor discovered that the
administer justice impartially." He is defendants filed a "Cadastral Answer" over said
hereby reprimanded for his questionable lot
conduct in the case at bar, with the
warning that commission of similar acts The complaint further alleged that the national
in the future will be dealt with more
government had allotted an appropriation for
severely.
the construction of a municipal gymnasium but
13. RTC JUDGE CAMILO E. TAMIN,
the said construction which was already started
Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court,
could not continue because of the presence of
Branch 23, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur and
the buildings constructed by the defendants;
the MUNICIPALITY OF DUMINGAG,
that the appropriation for the construction of
ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR; represented by
the gymnasium might be reverted back to the
MAYOR DOMICIANO E. REAL vs.
national government which would result to
COURT OF APPEALS, VICENTE
"irreparable damage, injury and prejudice" to
MEDINA and FORTUNATA ROSELLON
the municipality and its people who are
GUTIERREZ, JR. expected to derive benefit from the
accomplishment of the project.
FACTS:
The petitioner Judge issued an order
The present petition seeks to annul and set aside
setting the preliminary hearing for the issuance
the decision and resolution dated January 21,
1991 and February 20, 1991, respectively of the of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction
Court of Appeals which declared as null and and/or writ of possession on October 10, 1990.
void the October 10, 1991 order of the Instead of filing an answer, the
petitioner Judge in a civil case "for ejectment
respondents filed a motion to dismiss alleging
with preliminary injunction and damages" filed
the lack of jurisdiction of the trial court, since
by petitioner municipality against the private
respondents granting the petitioner the complaint is for illegal detainer which is
municipality's motion for a writ of possession within the original jurisdiction of the municipal
and the writ issued pursuant to it. court and the pendency of a cadastral case
The petitioner Judge issued two (2)
The plaintiff (petitioner municipality herein) is orders. The first order denied the motion to
the owner of a parcel of residential land located dismiss. The second order granted the petitioner
at Poblacion, Dumingag, Zamboanga del Sur municipality's motion for a writ of possession
with an area of 5,894 square meters more or "with the ancillary writ of demolition to place
less; that the parcel of land was reserved for in possession the plaintiff on the land subject of
public plaza under Presidential Proclamation this case, to the end that the public construction
No. 365. During the incumbency of the thereon will not be jeopardized."
late Mayor Isidoro E. Real, Sr. or in 1958, the
municipality leased an Area of 1,350 square According to the petitioner Judge, the
meters to the defendants (respondents herein) necessity of a writ of possession is greater in
subject to the condition that they should vacate the instant case considering that the parcel of
the place in case it is needed for public land is covered by a Presidential Proclamation
purposes; that the defendants religiously paid and the on-going construction thereon is being
the rentals until 1967 endangered to be left unfinished on account of
the buildings standing on the parcel of land
because the appropriation for the construction may be issued. That writ is available (1) in a
might be reverted back to the national treasury. land registration proceeding, which is a
proceeding in rem (2) in an extra-judicial
The private respondents filed their
foreclosure of a realty mortgage (3) in a
answer to the complaint alleging therein that
judicial foreclosure of mortgage, a quasi in
the subject parcel of land has been owned,
rem proceeding,provided that the mortgagor is
occupied and possess by respondent Vicente
in possession of the mortgaged realty and no
Medina since 1947 when he bought the subject
third person, not party to the foreclosure suit,
parcel from a Subanan native; that the other
had intervened and (4) in execution sales.
respondent Fortunata Rosellon leased from
Medina a portion of the parcel of land; that the The appellate court also ruled that the trial court
respondents were never lessees of the petitioner committed an error when it applied by analogy
municipality; that Proclamation No-365 issued the rule on eminent domain (Rule 67, Revised
on March 15, 1968 recognized "private rights"; Rules of Court) to justify the issuance of the
and, that a case is pending before the Cadastral writ of possession and writ of demolition. In the
court between respondent Medina and case at bar, there is neither statutory authority
petitioner municipality as regards the for the trial court's action nor bond given to
ownership of the subject parcel of land. compensate the petitioners for the deprivation
of their possession and the destruction of their
The appellate court rightfully upheld the
houses if it turns out that the land belongs to
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court over the
them.
case based on the allegations in the complaint.
The allegations and not the title control the The petitioners now contend that the
cause of action of the complaint. allegations in the complaint constitute a cause
of action for abatement of public nuisance
The action may really be considered one for
under Article 694 of the Civil Code. On the
recovery of possession. For though a lease is
basis of this proposition, the petitioners assert
alleged, the lease would be void and the
that petitioner municipality is entitled to the
municipality could recover the possession of
writ of possession and writ of demolition.
the land. This is the teaching of the leading case
of Municipality of Cavite v. Rojas in which it ISSUES
was held that the lease by a municipal
1. Whether or not the petitioner municipality is
corporation of a public plaza is null and void
entitled to a writ of possession and a writ of
because land for public use is outside the
demolition even before the trial of the case
commerce of man and, therefore, the lessee
starts.
must restore possession of the land by vacating
it. 2. Whether or not the municipality has a cause
of action for the abatement of public nuisance
Prescinding from the finding that the complaint
under Article 694 of the Civil Code.
is for recovery of possession the appellate court
concluded that the trial court did not have RULING
authority to issue a writ of possession and a
writ of demolition citing the case of Mabale 1. Article 699 of the Civil Code provides for the
v.Apalisok to wit: following remedies against a public nuisance:
In that connection, it should be borne in mind (1) A prosecution under the Penal Code or any
that the law specifies when a writ of possession local ordinance; or
(2) A civil action; or he allegedly bought the same from a Subanan
native.
(3) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.
Considering therefore, the nature and purpose
The petitioner municipality had three remedies
of the Cadastral proceedings, the outcome of
from which to select its cause of action. It chose
said proceedings becomes a prejudicial
to file a civil action for the recovery of
question which must be addressed in the
possession of the parcel of land occupied by the
resolution of the instant case. We apply by
private respondents. Obviously, petitioner
analogy the ruling in the case of Quiambao
municipality was aware that under the then
v. Osorio, to wit:
Local Government Code (B.P. Blg. 337) the
Sangguniang Bayan has to first pass an The essential elements of a prejudicial question
ordinance before the municipality may as provided under Section 5, Rule 111 of the
summarily abate a public nuisance. (Sec. 149(z) Revised Rules of Court area: [a] the civil action
(ee). involves an issue similar or intimately related to
the issue in the criminal action; and [b] the
A public plaza is outside the commerce of man
resolution of such issue determines whether or
and constructions thereon can be abated
not the criminal action may proceed.
summarily by the municipality. (Villanueva
v. Castañeda, Jr) The actions involved in the case at bar being
respectively civil and administrative in
If, therefore, the allegations in the complaint
character, it is obvious that technically, there is
are true and that the parcel of land being
no prejudicial question to speak of. Equally
occupied by the private respondents is indeed a
apparent, however, is the intimate correlation
public plaza, then the writ of possession and
between said two [2] proceedings, stemming
writ of demolition would have been justified. In
from the fact that the right of private
fact, under such circumstances, there would
respondents to eject petitioner from the
have been no need for a writ of possession in
disputed portion depends primarily on the
favor of the petitioner municipality since the
resolution of the pending administrative case.
private respondents' occupation over the subject
For while it may be true that private
parcel of land can not be recognized by any
respondents had prior possession of the lot in
law. A writ of demolition would have been
question, at the time of the institution of the
sufficient to eject the private respondents.
ejectment case, such right of possession had
However, not only did the municipality avoid been terminated, or at the very least, suspended
the use of abatement without judicial by the cancellation by the Land Authority of the
proceedings, but the status of the subject parcel Agreement to Sell executed in their favor.
of land has yet to be decided.
Technically, a prejudicial question shall not rise
It is to be noted that even before the in the instant case since the two actions
Proclamation, the parcel of land was the subject involved are both civil in nature. However, we
of cadastral proceedings before another branch have to consider the fact that the cadastral
of the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga del proceedings will ultimately settle the real
Sur. One of the claimants in the cadastral owner/s of the disputed parcel of land.
proceedings is private respondent Vicente
In case respondent Vicente Medina is adjudged
Medina who traced his ownership over the
the real owner of the parcel of land, then the
subject parcel of land as far back as 1947 when
writ of possession and writ of demolition would
necessarily be null and void. Not only that. The Art. 695 Nuisance is either public or private. A
demolition of the constructions in the parcel of public nuisance affects a community or
land would prove truly unjust to the private neighborhood or any considerable number of
respondents. persons, although the extent of the annoyance,
danger or damage upon individuals may be
Parenthetically, the issuance of the writ of
unequal. . . .
possession and writ of demolition by the
petitioner Judge in the ejectment proceedings Applying these criteria, we agree with the
was premature. What the petitioner should have petitioners that the complaint alleges factual
done was to stop the proceedings in the instant circumstances of a complaint for abatement of
case and wait for the final outcome of the public nuisance.
cadastral proceedings.
However, the appellate court stated:
Faced with these alternative possibilities, and in
We do not, however, have jurisdiction over
the interest of justice, we rule that the petitioner
petitioners' claim for damages. This must be
municipality must put up a bond to be
pursued in an appropriate action instituted in
determined by the trial court to answer for just
the Regional Trial Court.
compensation to which the private respondents
may be entitled in case the demolition of their
buildings is adjudged to be illegal.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is
Moreover, the appellate court correctly ruled DISMISSED. The questioned decision and
this Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court on resolution of the Court of Appeals are
eminent domain cannot be made a subterfuge to AFFIRMED. The trial court is ordered to
justify the petitioner Judge's issuance of a writ require the petitioner municipality to put up a
of possession in favor of petitioner bond to be determined by the court after
municipality. Even if we concede that Rule 67 hearing to answer, for just compensation due
is applicable to the instant case and that the private respondents in case the demolition
petitioner municipality had the lawful right to of their buildings is adjudged to be illegal. The
eject the private respondents from the subject "Motion to Declare in Contempt" filed by
parcel of land the issuance of a writ of petitioner Judge is referred to the Regional
possession in favor of petitioner municipality Trial Court of Pagadian City, Branch 18 in
would still not be legal if the petitioner Civil Case No. 3156 for appropriate action.
municipality really owns the land.
Facts: Ruling:
>In 1985, respondent Isagani Bobis contracted
a first marriage with one Maria Dulce B. Javier. No.
>In 1996, without said marriage having been A prejudicial question is one which arises in a
annulled, nullified or terminated, Isagani case the resolution of which is a logical
contracted a second marriage with petitioner antecedent of the issue involved therein. It is a
Imelda Marbella-Bobis and allegedly a third question based on a fact distinct and separate
marriage with a certain Julia Sally Hernandez. from the crime but so intimately connected with
it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the
accused. It must appear not only that the civil
>In 1998, Imelda filed a criminal case for case involves facts upon which the criminal
bigamy against Isagani. action is based, but also that the resolution of
the issues raised in the civil action would
>Isagani initiated a civil action for the judicial necessarily be determinative of the criminal
declaration of absolute nullity of his first case. Consequently, the defense must involve
marriage on the ground that it was celebrated an issue similar or intimately related to the
without a marriage license. same issue raised in the criminal action and its
resolution determinative of whether or not the
>Isagani then filed a motion to suspend the latter action may proceed. Its two essential
proceedings in the criminal case for bigamy elements are:
-invoking the pending civil case for nullity (a) the civil action involves an issue similar
of the first marriage as a prejudicial question to or intimately related to the issue raised in the
the criminal case. criminal action; and
(b) the resolution of such issue determines
>Imelda argues that whether or not the criminal action may
-her marriage to Isagani was exempt from proceed.
the requirement of a marriage license
-and claims that prior to their marriage,
A prejudicial question does not conclusively
resolve the guilt or innocence of the accused The issue in this case is limited to the existence
but simply tests the sufficiency of the of a prejudicial question, and we are not called
allegations in the information in order to sustain upon to resolve the validity of the first
the further prosecution of the criminal case. A marriage. Be that as it may, suffice it to state
party who raises a prejudicial question is that the Civil Code, under which the first
deemed to have hypothetically admitted that all marriage was celebrated, provides that "every
the essential elements of a crime have been intendment of law or fact leans toward the
adequately alleged in the information, validity of marriage, the indissolubility of the
considering that the prosecution has not yet marriage bonds. Hence, parties should not be
presented a single evidence on the indictment permitted to judge for themselves the nullity of
or may not yet have rested its case. A challenge their marriage, for the same must be submitted
of the allegations in the information on the to the determination of competent courts. Only
ground of prejudicial question is in effect a when the nullity of the marriage is so declared
question on the merits of the criminal charge can it be held as void, and so long as there is no
through a non-criminal suit. such declaration the presumption is that the
marriage exists. No matter how obvious,
Article 40 of the Family Code, which was manifest or patent the absence of an element is,
effective at the time of celebration of the the intervention of the courts must always be
second marriage, requires a prior judicial resorted to. That is why Article 40 of the
declaration of nullity of a previous marriage Family Code requires a "final judgment," which
before a party may remarry. The clear only the courts can render.
implication of this is that it is not for the
parties, particularly the accused, to determine Thus, as ruled in Landicho v. Relova, he who
the validity or invalidity of the marriage. contracts a second marriage before the
Whether or not the first marriage was void for judicial declaration of nullity of the first
lack of a license is a matter of defense because marriage assumes the risk of being
there is still no judicial declaration of its nullity prosecuted for bigamy, and in such a case
at the time the second marriage was contracted. the criminal case may not be suspended on
It should be remembered that bigamy can the ground of the pendency of a civil case for
successfully be prosecuted provided all its declaration of nullity. In a recent case for
elements concur two of which are a previous concubinage, the court held that the pendency
marriage and a subsequent marriage which of a civil case for declaration of nullity of
would have been valid had it not been for the marriage is not a prejudicial question. This
existence at the material time of the first ruling applies here by analogy since both
marriage. crimes presuppose the subsistence of a
marriage.
In the case at bar, respondents clear intent is to
obtain a judicial declaration of nullity of his In the light of Article 40 of the Family Code,
first marriage and thereafter to invoke that very respondent, without first having obtained the
same judgment to prevent his prosecution for judicial declaration of nullity of the first
bigamy. He cannot have his cake and eat it too. marriage, cannot be said to have validly entered
Otherwise, all that an adventurous bigamist has into the second marriage. Per current
to do is to disregard Article 40 of the Family jurisprudence, a marriage though void still
Code, contract a subsequent marriage and needs a judicial declaration of such fact before
escape a bigamy charge by simply claiming that any party can marry again; otherwise the
the first marriage is void and that the second marriage will also be void. The reason
subsequent marriage is equally void for lack of is that, without a judicial declaration of its
a prior judicial declaration of nullity of the first. nullity, the first marriage is presumed to be
subsisting. In the case at bar, respondent was
for all legal intents and purposes regarded as a
married man at the time he contracted his
second marriage with petitioner. Against this
legal backdrop, any decision in the civil action
for nullity would not erase the fact that
respondent entered into a second marriage
during the subsistence of a first marriage. Thus,
a decision in the civil case is not essential to the
determination of the criminal charge. It is,
therefore, not a prejudicial question. As stated
above, respondent cannot be permitted to use
his own malfeasance to defeat the criminal
action against him.