Prejudicial Question

1. Jenny charged her husband Alex with bigamy alleging that when she married him
he already had a prior valid and existing marriage with Evita, a fact Jenny did not know until
lately. Subsequently Alex also filed a case for declaration of nullity of his marriage with
Jenny claiming that his marriage with her was an absolute nullity since he discovered that
when he contracted marriage with Jenny she had a prior valid and existing marriage with
Brando.
Alex moved to suspend proceedings in his bigamy case on the ground of prejudicial
question alleging that in the event his marriage to Jenny was declared viod ab initio there
would be no second marriage to speak of and the bigamy charge against him would fail for
want of factual and legal basis.
a) If you were the judge, how would you resolve the motion? Explain.

Answer:
I would deny the motion of Alex. When Alex married Jenny despite his existing
marriage with Evita, he was guilty of bigamy. His subsequent action for declaration of nullity
when he discovered that Jenny had a prior valid and existing marriage with Brando cannot
be raised as a prejudicial question in the bigamy case.

b) Suppose that Alex filed a complaint for nullity of his marriage with Jenny on the
ground that his consent was obtained at gunpoint, would your answer be the same? Explain.

Answer:
No, the complaint of Alex for nullity of his marriage with Jenny, on the ground that his
consent was obtained at gunpoint, is a valid prejudicial question.

c) Suppose that after Alex was charged with bigamy he filed a complaint for
declaration of nullity of his marriage with Evita. Could Alex have the bigamy proceedings
suspended by invoking prejudicial question claiming that the outcome of the bigamy case
would depend on whether there was a prior valid and existing marriage, which constitutes
an element of the crime? Explain. (1995, #10)

Answer:
No, because the fact that he married Jenny before his former marriage with Evita had
been legally dissolved makes him guilty of bigamy.

X was charged with the crime of bigamy before the Fiscal’s Office. He claimed that
there was a pending action for annulment of his second marriage between him and his
second wife. He prayed that the proceeding before the Fiscal’s Office be suspended on
account of the annulment case filed by him which is a prejudicial question. Should the
preliminary investigation before the Fiscal’s Office be suspended? Explain your answer.
(1976, #4)
Answer:
No. While the pending action for annulment of the second marriage may raise a
prejudicial question (if X claims he was forced into the second marriage), it is now a settled
rule that the petition for suspension of the criminal action, based upon the pendency of a
prejudicial question in a civil case, may be filed after the criminal action had been filed in
court and not during the preliminary investigation by the fiscal.