Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

RULE 111 Section 2. When separate civil action is suspended.

— After the criminal action has


Prosecution of Civil Action been commenced, the separate civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted until
final judgment has been entered in the criminal action.
Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. — (a) When a criminal action is
instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has already been instituted, the
charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party latter shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be found before judgment on the
waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil merits. The suspension shall last until final judgment is rendered in the criminal
action prior to the criminal action. action. Nevertheless, before judgment on the merits is rendered in the civil action, the
same may, upon motion of the offended party, be consolidated with the criminal
The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made before action in the court trying the criminal action. In case of consolidation, the evidence
the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording the already adduced in the civil action shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the
offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation. criminal action without prejudice to the right of the prosecution to cross-examine the
witnesses presented by the offended party in the criminal case and of the parties to
present additional evidence. The consolidated criminal and civil actions shall be tried
When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the accused by way of and decided jointly.
moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages without specifying the amount
thereof in the complaint or information, the filing fees thereof shall constitute a first
lien on the judgment awarding such damages. During the pendency of the criminal action, the running of the period of prescription of
the civil action which cannot be instituted separately or whose proceeding has been
suspended shall be tolled. (n)
Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is specified in the complaint or
information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon the
filing thereof in court. The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil action.
However, the civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a
finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which
Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees shall be required for actual the civil liability may arise did not exist. (2a)
damages.
Section 3. When civil action may proceeded independently. — In the cases provided
No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by the accused in for in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the
the criminal case, but any cause of action which could have been the subject thereof independent civil action may be brought by the offended party. It shall proceed
may be litigated in a separate civil action. (1a) independently of the criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of
evidence. In no case, however, may the offended party recover damages twice for the
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to same act or omission charged in the criminal action. (3a)
include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action
separately shall be allowed. Section 4. Effect of death on civil actions. — The death of the accused after
arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action shall extinguish the civil
Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party shall pay liability arising from the delict. However, the independent civil action instituted under
in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check involved, which shall be section 3 of this Rule or which thereafter is instituted to enforce liability arising from
considered as the actual damages claimed. Where the complaint or information also other sources of obligation may be continued against the estate or legal
seeks to recover liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the representative of the accused after proper substitution or against said estate, as the
offended party shall pay additional filing fees based on the amounts alleged therein. If case may be. The heirs of the accused may be substituted for the deceased without
the amounts are not so alleged but any of these damages are subsequently awarded requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint a
by the court, the filing fees based on the amount awarded shall constitute a first lien guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
on the judgment.
The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear
Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.
commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action upon application with the
court trying the latter case. If the application is granted, the trial of both actions shall A final judgment entered in favor of the offended party shall be enforced in the
proceed in accordance with section 2 of this Rule governing consolidation of the civil manner especially provided in these rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of
and criminal actions. (cir. 57-97) the deceased.
If the accused dies before arraignment, the case shall be dismissed without prejudice On February 7, 1997, after twenty-four years of marriage and four
to any civil action the offended party may file against the estate of the deceased. (n) children, 2 petitioner filed a petition for nullity of marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code before Branch
Section 5. Judgment in civil action not a bar. — A final judgment rendered in a civil 87 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The case was docketed as
action absolving the defendant from civil liability is not a bar to a criminal action Civil Case No. Q-97-30192. 3
against the defendant for the same act or omission subject of the civil action. (4a)
In her Answer to the said petition, petitioner's wife Charmaine Felix
Section 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. — A petition for suspension alleged that it was petitioner who abandoned the conjugal home and lived
of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil with a certain woman named Milagros Salting. 4 Charmaine subsequently
action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the filed a criminal complaint for concubinage 5 under Article 334 of the
preliminary investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the Revised Penal Code against petitioner and his paramour before the City
petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before the Prosecutor's Office of Makati who, in a Resolution dated September 16,
prosecution rests. (6a) 1997, found probable cause and ordered the filing of an
Information 6 against them. The case, docketed as Criminal Case No.
Section 7. Elements of prejudicial question. — The elements of a prejudicial question 236176, was filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City,
are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately Branch 61.
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. (5a)
On March 20, 1998, petitioner, in order to forestall the issuance of a
warrant for his arrest, filed a Motion to Defer Proceedings Including the
G.R. No. 137567 June 20, 2000 Issuance of the Warrant of Arrest in the criminal case. Petitioner argued
that the pendency of the civil case for declaration of nullity of his marriage
MEYNARDO L. BELTRAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE posed a prejudicial question to the determination of the criminal case.
PHILIPPINES, and HON. JUDGE FLORENTINO TUAZON, JR., being Judge Alden Vasquez Cervantes denied the foregoing motion in the
the Judge of the RTC, Brach 139, Makati City, Respondents. Order 7 dated August 31, 1998. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of
the said Order of denial was likewise denied in an Order dated December
  9, 1998.

BUENA, J.: In view of the denial of his motion to defer the proceedings in the
concubinage case, petitioner went to the Regional Trial Court of Makati
City, Branch 139 on certiorari, questioning the Orders dated August 31,
This petition for review, filed under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
1998 and December 9, 1998 issued by Judge Cervantes and praying for
Procedure, seeks to review and set aside the Order dated January 28,
the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. 8 In an Order 9 dated
1999 issued by Judge Florentino A. Tuazon, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court
January 28, 1999, the Regional Trial Court of Makati denied the petition
of Makati City, Branch 139 in Special Civil Case No. 98-3056, entitled
for certiorari. Said Court subsequently issued another Order 10 dated
"Meynardo Beltran vs. People of the Philippines and Hon. Judge Alden
February 23, 1999, denying his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal
Cervantes of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 61." The
of his petition.
said Order denied petitioner's prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction to enjoin Judge Cervantes from proceeding with the
trial of Criminal Case No. 236176, a concubinage case against petitioner Undaunted, petitioner filed the instant petition for review.
on the ground that the pending petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage filed by petitioner against his wife constitutes a prejudicial Petitioner contends that the pendency of the petition for declaration of
question. nullity of his marriage based on psychological incapacity under Article 36
of the Family Code is a prejudicial question that should merit the
The antecedent facts of the case are undisputed: suspension of the criminal case for concubinage filed against him by his
wife.
Petitioner Meynardo Beltran and wife Charmaine E. Felix were married on
June 16, 1973 at the Immaculate Concepcion Parish Church in Cubao, Petitioner also contends that there is a possibility that two conflicting
Quezon City. 1 decisions might result from the civil case for annulment of marriage and
the criminal case for concubinage. In the civil case, the trial court might well as an action for the custody and support of their common children and
declare the marriage as valid by dismissing petitioner's complaint but in the delivery of the latters' presumptive legitimes. In such cases, evidence
the criminal case, the trial court might acquit petitioner because the needs must be adduced, testimonial or documentary, to prove the
evidence shows that his marriage is void on ground of psychological existence of grounds rendering such a previous marriage an absolute
incapacity. Petitioner submits that the possible conflict of the courts' ruling nullity. These needs not be limited solely to an earlier final judgment of a
regarding petitioner's marriage can be avoided, if the criminal case will be court declaring such previous marriage void.
suspended, until the court rules on the validity of marriage; that if
petitioner's marriage is declared void by reason of psychological incapacity So that in a case for concubinage, the accused, like the herein petitioner
then by reason of the arguments submitted in the subject petition, his need not present a final judgment declaring his marriage void for he can
marriage has never existed; and that, accordingly, petitioner could not be adduce evidence in the criminal case of the nullity of his marriage other
convicted in the criminal case because he was never before a married than proof of a final judgment declaring his marriage void.
man.
With regard to petitioner's argument that he could be acquitted of the
Petitioner's contentions are untenable. charge of concubinage should his marriage be declared null and void,
suffice it to state that even a subsequent pronouncement that his marriage
The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid two is void from the beginning is not a defense.
conflicting decisions. It has two essential elements: (a) the civil action
involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the Analogous to this case is that of Landicho vs.  Relova 1 cited in Donato
criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or vs.  Luna 14 where this Court held that:
not the criminal action may proceed. 11
. . . Assuming that the first marriage was null and void on the ground
The pendency of the case for declaration of nullity of petitioner's marriage alleged by petitioner, that fact would not be material to the outcome of the
is not a prejudicial question to the concubinage case. For a civil case to be criminal case. Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for
considered prejudicial to a criminal action as to cause the suspension of themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted to the judgment of
the latter pending the final determination of the civil case, it must appear the competent courts and only when the nullity of the marriage is so
not only that the said civil case involves the same facts upon which the declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is no such declaration
criminal prosecution would be based, but also that in the resolution of the the presumption is that the marriage exists. Therefore, he who contracts a
issue or issues raised in the aforesaid civil action, the guilt or innocence of second marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of the first
the accused would necessarily be determined. marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy.

Art. 40 of the Family Code provides: Thus, in the case at bar it must also be held that parties to the marriage
should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for the same
The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of must be submitted to the judgment of the competent courts and only
remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous when the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and
marriage void. so long as there is no such declaration the presumption is that the
marriage exists for all intents and purposes. Therefore, he who cohabits
In Domingo vs. Court of Appeals, 12 this Court ruled that the import of said with a woman not his wife before the judicial declaration of nullity of the
provision is that for purposes of remarriage, the only legally acceptable marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for concubinage. The lower
basis for declaring a previous marriage an absolute nullity is a final court therefore, has not erred in affirming the Orders of the judge of the
judgment declaring such previous marriage void, whereas, for purposes of Metropolitan Trial Court ruling that pendency of a civil action for nullity of
other than remarriage, other evidence is acceptable. The pertinent marriage does not pose a prejudicial question in a criminal case for
portions of said Decision read: concubinage.

. . . Undoubtedly, one can conceive of other instances where a party might WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the instant petition is DISMISSED.
well invoke the absolute nullity of a previous marriage for purposes other
than remarriage, such as in case of an action for liquidation, partition, SO ORDERED.
distribution and separation of property between the erstwhile spouses, as

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen