Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > August 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-15315 August 26, 1960 - ABUNDIO MERCED v. HON. CLEMENTINO V. DIEZ, ET AL.

109 Phil 155:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-15315. August 26, 1960.]

ABUNDIO MERCED, Petitioner, v. HON. CLEMENTINO V. DIEZ, ETC. ET AL., Respondents.

Pedro A. Bandoquillo for Petitioner.

Fulvio Pelaez for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. MARRIAGES, ANNULMENT OF; BIGAMY; PREJUDICIAL QUESTION DEFINED AND ITS ELEMENTS. — Prejudicial question has been defined to be that which arises in a case, the resolution of which question is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in said case, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court; that is its first element. Jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal; this is the second element. In an action for bigamy for example, if the accused claims that the first marriage is null and void and the right to decide such validity is vested in another tribunal, the civil action for nullity must first be decided before the action for bigamy can proceed; hence, the validity of the first marriage is a prejudicial question. (People v. Aragon, 50 Off. Gaz. No. 10, 4863).

2. ID.; ID.; SECOND MARRIAGE SHOULD HAVE THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A VALID MARRIAGE. — In order that a person may be held guilty of the crime of bigamy, the second and subsequent marriage must have all the essential elements of a valid marriage, were it not for the subsistence of the first marriage.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; QUESTION OF INVALIDITY TO BE DECIDED IN CIVIL ACTION. — One of the essential elements of a valid marriage is that the consent thereto of the contracting parties must be freely and voluntarily given. Without the element of consent a marriage would be illegal and void. (Section 29, Act No. 3613, known as the Marriage Law.) But the question of invalidity cannot ordinarily be decided in the criminal action for bigamy but in a civil action for annulment. Since the validity of the second marriage, subject of the action for bigamy, cannot be determined in the criminal case and since prosecution for bigamy does not lie unless the elements of the second marriage appear to exist, it is necessary that a decision in a civil action to the effect that the second marriage contains all the elements of a marriage must first be secured.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; COURT’S JURISDICTION OVER CIVIL ACTION DISTINCT FROM ITSELF WHEN TRYING BIGAMY. — In this jurisdiction, where the courts are vested with both civil and criminal jurisdiction, the principle of prejudicial question is to be applied even if there is only one court before which the civil action and the criminal action are to be litigated. But in this case the court, when exercising its jurisdiction over the civil action for the annulment of marriage, is considered as a court distinct and different from itself when trying the criminal action for bigamy.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


This is a petition for a writ of certiorari with prohibition to prohibit the judge presiding the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental, Hon. Clementino V. Diez, from proceeding further in the Criminal Case No. V-6520, entitled People of the Philippines v. Abundio Merced, until after final termination of Civil Case No. R- 5387, for the annulment of the marriage of petitioner Abundio Merced with Elizabeth Ceasar, also pending in same court.

The record disclose the following proceedings in the court a quo: On January 30, 1958, Abundio Merced filed a complaint for annulment of his second marriage with Elizabeth Ceasar. The complaint is docketed as Civil Case No. R-5387. The complaint alleges that defendant Elizabeth Ceasar and her relatives forced, threatened and intimidated him into signing an affidavit to the effect that he and defendant had been living together as husband and wife for over five years, which is not true; that this affidavit was used by defendant in securing their marriage of exceptional character, without the need for a marriage license; that he was again forced, threatened and intimidated by defendant and her relatives into entering the marriage with her on August 21, 1957 before Municipal Judge Medardo A. Conde; that immediately after the celebration of the marriage plaintiff left defendant and never lived with her; that the defendant wrote him on October 29, 1957, admitting that he was forced into the marriage and asking him to go to Cebu to have the marriage annulled, but he refused to go for fear he may be forced into living with the defendant. Merced prays for annulment of the marriage and for moral damages in the amount of P2,000. On March 3, 1958, Elizabeth Ceasar filed her answer to the complaint. In her answer, she denies the material allegations of the complaint and avers as affirmative defenses that neither she nor her relatives know of plaintiff’s previous marriage to Eufrocina Tan; that sometime in July, 1957, plaintiff asked her mother to intercede on their behalf to secure her father’s consent to their marriage as plaintiff could not concentrate on his studies without marrying Elizabeth, but that her mother advised him to finish his studies first; that sometime in April, 1957, defendant learned that plaintiff was engaged to marry Eufrocina Tan, but plaintiff, upon being confronted with such discovery, showed her a letter which he wrote breaking off his engagement with Tan. As a counterclaim defendant asks P50,000 as moral damages for the deceit, fraud and insidious machinations committed upon her by plaintiff.

On February 19, 1958, after plaintiff had filed Civil Case No. R- 5387 defendant Elizabeth Ceasar filed a criminal complaint for bigamy against plaintiff Abundio Merced with the office of the City Fiscal of Cebu. On April 7, 1958 the Assistant City Fiscal filed Criminal Case No. V-6520, charging Merced with bigamy for the second marriage. The information reads:ClubJuris

"The undersigned Assistant Fiscal of the City of Cebu accuses Abundio Merced of the crime of bigamy, committed as follows:clubjuris

That on or about the 21st day of August, 1957, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused Abundio Merced, being previously united in lawful marriage with Eufrocina Tan, and without the said marriage having been legally dissolved, did then and there wilfully unlawfully, and feloniously contract a second marriage with Elizabeth Ceasar.

Contrary to Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code." (Annex "2." )

Abundio Merced filed a motion to hold the trial of said criminal case in abeyance until final termination of Civil Case No. R-5387. Reason alleged for the motion is that the civil action involves facts which if proved will determine the innocence of the accused. After an opposition thereto was filed by the assistant provincial fiscal, the court granted the motion. However, upon motion for reconsideration filed by the fiscal, the order was set aside and another entered denying the motion of accused for suspension of the criminal proceedings, which last order is the one sought herein to be annulled. The court held in its last order that inasmuch as by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of People v. Mendoza, 95 Phil., 845; 50 Off. Gaz. [10], 4767, judicial declaration of nullity of a second and bigamous marriage is not necessary, there is no need in this case to decide the nullity of the second marriage, or to determine and declare the existence of the grounds for annulling the same, but that said grounds should be used as a defense in the criminal action. A motion to reconsider the second order of the court having been denied, petition herein was filed.

When the petition for certiorari with prohibition was filed, the petitioner secured from this Court a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin respondent judge from proceeding further in the criminal case.

Before this Court the sole question raised is whether an action to annul the second marriage is a prejudicial question in a prosecution for bigamy.

The definition and the elements of a prejudicial question have been set forth by us as follows:ClubJuris

"Prejudicial question has been defined to be that which arises in a case, the resolution of which (question) is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in said case, and the cognizance of which pertains to another Tribunal (Cuestion prejudicial, es la que surge en un pleito o causa cuya resolución sean antecedente lógico de la cuestión-objeto del pleito o causa y cuyo conocimiento corresponda a los Tribunales de otro orden o jurisdicción. — Enciclopedia Juridica Española, p. 228). The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court; this is its first element. Jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal; this is the second element. In an action for bigamy for example, if the accused claims that the first marriage is null and void and the right to decide such validity is vested in another tribunal, the civil action for nullity must first be decided before the action for bigamy can proceed; hence, the validity of the first marriage is a prejudicial question." (People v. Aragon, 94 Phil., 357; 50 Off. Gaz., No. 10, 4863).

In order that a person may be held guilty of the crime of bigamy, the second and subsequent marriage must have all the essential elements of a valid marriage, were it not for the subsistence of the first marriage. This was the ruling of this Court in People v. Dumpo, 62 Phil., 246, where we said:ClubJuris

"It is an essential element of the crime of bigamy that the alleged second marriage, having all the essential requisites, would be valid were it not for the subsistence of the first marriage. It appearing that the marriage alleged to have been contracted by the accused with Sabdapal, her former marriage with Hassan being undissolved, cannot be considered as such, according to Mohammedan rites, there is no justification to hold her guilty of the crime charged in the information." (People v. Dumpo, 62 Phil. 246.)

One of the essential elements of a valid marriage is that the consent thereto of the contracting parties must be freely and voluntarily given. Without the element of consent a marriage would be illegal and void. (Section 29, Act No. 3613, otherwise known as the Marriage Law.) But the question of invalidity cannot ordinarily be decided in the criminal action for bigamy but in a civil action for annulment. Since the validity of the second marriage, subject of the action for bigamy, cannot be determined in the criminal case and since prosecution for bigamy does not lie unless the elements of the second marriage appear to exist, it is necessary that a decision in a civil action to the effect that the second marriage contains all the essentials of a marriage must first be secured.

We have, therefore, in the case at bar, the issue of the validity of the second marriage, which must be determined before hand in the civil action, before the criminal action can proceed. We have a situation where the issue of the validity of the second marriage can be determined or must first be determined in the civil action before the criminal action for bigamy can be prosecuted. The question of the validity of the second marriage is, therefore, a prejudicial question, because determination of the validity of the second marriage is determinable in the civil action and must precede the criminal action for bigamy.

Spanish jurisprudence, from which the principle of prejudicial question has been taken, requires that the essential element determinative of the criminal action must be cognizable by another court. This requirement of a different court is demanded in Spanish jurisprudence because Spanish courts are divided according to their jurisdictions, some courts being exclusively of civil jurisdiction, others of criminal jurisdiction. In the Philippines where our courts are vested with both civil and criminal jurisdiction, the principle of prejudicial question is to be applied even if there is only one court before which the civil action and the criminal action are to be litigated. But in this case the court when exercising its jurisdiction over the civil action for the annulment of marriage is considered as a court distinct and different from itself when trying the criminal action for bigamy.

Our conclusion that the determination of the validity of the marriage in the civil action for annulment is a prejudicial question, insofar as the criminal action for bigamy is concerned, is supported by Mr. Justice Moran in his dissenting opinion in De Leon v. Mabanag, 70 Phil., 207 thus:ClubJuris

"La regla general es que cuando hay una cuestión civil y otra criminal sobre un mismo delito u ofensa, la segunda debe verse antes que la primera, por la razón de que las formas de un juicio criminal son, las mas a propósito para la averiguación de un delito, y no las de un juicio civil. Esta regla tiene, sin embargo, una excepción, y es la que se refiere a una cuestión civil prejudicial. Una cuestión civil es de caracter prejudicial y debe resolverse antes que una cuestión criminal, cuando versa sobre un hecho distinto y separado del delito, pero tan intimamente ligado a él que determina la culpabilidad o inocencia del acusado. Por ejemplo, una acción criminal por bigamia." clubjuris

The majority decision in said case of De Leon v. Mabanag also sustains the theory that when a civil action is pending in court, in which the validity of a document claimed to be false and fictitious is in issue, the fiscal may not prosecute the person who allegedly executed the false document because the issue of the validity of the instrument is sub judice and the prosecuting officer should be ordered to suspend the criminal action until the prejudicial question has been finally determined. Thus the Court said:ClubJuris

"Hablando en términos generales la facultad del Fiscal y su deber de perseguir los delitos no deben ser controlados ni coartados por los tribunales; pero no hay duda que esa facultad puede ser regulada para que no se abuse de ella. Cuando un miembro del Ministerio Fiscal se desvia de la ley y entorpece la recta administración de justicia procesando a una persona por hechos constitutivos de delito que se encuentran sub-judice y de los cuales se propone una cuestión prejudicial administrativa, es deber de los tribunales llamarle la atención y obligarle que suspenda toda acción criminal hasta que la cuestión prejudicial administrativa se haya decidido finalmente." (De Leon v. Mabanag, 70 Phil., 207.)

The case of People v. Mendoza, supra, upon which the trial court and the respondents rely, presents a different set of facts from the case at bar. So is the ruling therein as contained in the syllabus. In said case of People v. Mendoza, Mendoza was charged with and convicted of bigamy for a marriage with one Carmencita Panlillo, contracted in August, 1949. Mendoza was married for the first time in 1936 with Josefa de Asis; then married for a second time with Olga Lema; and then married for the third time to Panlillo in 1949. On February 2, 1943, Josefa de Asis died. The court citing the provisions of Article 29 of the Marriage Law, held that the second marriage of appellant Mendoza with Lema was by operation of law null and void, because at the time of contracting said second marriage in 1941, appellant’s former wife Josefa de Asis was still living. This marriage of appellant with Lema being null and void at the time the appellant contracted the third marriage, the impediment of the second marriage did not exist. Hence the appellant was acquitted of bigamy for the 1949 marriage because his previous marriage with Lema on 1941, by operation of law, was void ab initio.

In the case at bar, in order that petitioner may be held guilty of the crime of bigamy, the marriage which he contracted for the second time with Elizabeth Ceasar, must first be declared valid. But its validity has been questioned in the civil action. This civil action must be decided before the prosecution for bigamy can proceed.

For the foregoing considerations, the petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari and prohibition is hereby granted. The order of the court denying the petition of the herein petitioner to prohibit the fiscal from prosecuting the case for bigamy, Criminal Case No. V-6520, entitled People v. Abundio Merced, is hereby set aside and the preliminary injunction issued by this Court to that effect is hereby made permanent. So ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepción, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



August-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12362 August 5, 1960 - CECILIO E. TRINIDAD, ET AL. v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    109 Phil 93

  • G.R. No. L-12800 August 5, 1960 - MELECIO CAJILIG, ET AL. v. FLORA ROBERSON CO.

    109 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-14003 August 5, 1960 - FEDERICO AZAOLA v. CESARIO SINGSON

    109 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. L-14400 August 5, 1960 - FELICISIMO GATMAITAN v. GORGONIO D. MEDINA

    109 Phil 108

  • G.R. No. L-12220 August 8, 1960 - PAULINO J. GARCIA, ET AL. v. PANFILO LEJANO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. L-12730 August 22, 1960 - C. N. HODGES v. AMADOR D. GARCIA

    109 Phil 133

  • G.R. No. L-12909 August 24, 1960 - FRANCISCO CRISOLOGO v. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. L-14637 August 24, 1960 - ATTY. RODRIGO MATUTINA v. JUDGE TEOFILO B. BUSLON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-15128 August 25, 1960 - CECILIO DIEGO v. SEGUNDO FERNANDO

    109 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. L-13105 August 25, 1960 - LUCINA BAITO v. ANATALIO SARMIENTO

    109 Phil 148

  • G.R. Nos. L-14684-86 August 26, 1960 - CATALINO CAISIP, ET AL. v. HON. JUDGE DOMINGO M. CABANGON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-15315 August 26, 1960 - ABUNDIO MERCED v. HON. CLEMENTINO V. DIEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-15822 August 26, 1960 - MEGIDA TINTIANGCO, ETC., ET AL. v. HON. BERNABE DE AQUINO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. L-9965 August 29, 1960 - LUCINA BIGLANGAWA, ET AL. v. PASTOR. B. CONSTANTINO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. L-14427 August 29, 1960 - BATANGAS TRANS. CO. v. GALICANO A. RIVERA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-14461 August 29, 1960 - BONIFACIO MERCADO v. PAULO M. MERCADO

    109 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. L-14518 August 29, 1960 - EUGENIA NELAYAN, ET AL. v. CECILIA NELAYAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-14903 August 29, 1960 - KOPPEL INC. v. DANILO DARLUCIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-14904 August 29, 1960 - CONSUELO ARRANZ, ET AL. v. VENERACION BARBERS ARRANZ

    109 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-15076 August 29, 1960 - ENRIQUE FERRER v. HON. E. L. DE LEON, ETC.

    109 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. L-9576 August 31, 1960 - SIXTA VENGASO, ETC. v. CENON BUENCAMINO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. L-9786 August 31, 1960 - ROSITA MASANGCAY, ET AL. v. MARCELO VALENCIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. L-10111 August 31, 1960 - SOLEDAD ROBLES, ET AL. v. ISABEL MANAHAN DE SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 218

  • G.R. No. L-11910 August 31, 1960 - PLASLU v. BOGO-MEDELLIN MILLING CO., INC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-11944 August 31, 1960 - PHIL. RACING CLUB, INC., ET AL. v. ARSENIO BONIFACIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. L-12005 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO FRAGA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. L-12020 August 31, 1960 - FELIXBERTO BULAHAN, ET AL. v. JUAN E. TUASON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. L-12286 August 31, 1960 - JOSE JAVELLANA, ET AL. v. FELICIDAD JAVELLANA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. L-12486 August 31, 1960 - LEONOR GRANA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. L-12597 August 31, 1960 - FERMIN LACAP, ET AL. v. HON. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ETC.

    109 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-12781 August 31, 1960 - PHIL. RACING CLUB, INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    109 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-12790 August 31, 1960 - JOEL JIMENEZ v. REMEDIOS CAÑIZARES, ET AL.

    109 Phil 273

  • G.R. No. L-12898 August 31, 1960 - ESTANISLAO PABUSTAN v. HON. PASTOR DE GUZMAN, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 278

  • G.R. Nos. L-13129 & L-13179-80 August 31, 1960 - BENGUET CONSOLIDATED UNIONS COUNCIL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. L-13162 August 31, 1960 - C. N. HODGES v. HON. FRANCISCO ARELLANO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. L-13177 August 31, 1960 - SWEE DIN TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 287

  • G.R. Nos. L-13219-20 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMIGIO CRUZ

    109 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. L-13281 August 31, 1960 - SIARI VALLEY ESTATES, INC. v. FILEMON LUCASAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 294

  • G.R. No. L-13353 August 31, 1960 - DOLORES NARAG v. SALVADOR CECILIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. L-13581 August 31, 1960 - EPIFANIO S. CESE v. GSIS

    109 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-13801 August 31, 1960 - PAULINA BAUTISTA v. LEONCIO DACANAY, ET AL.

    109 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. L-14101 August 31, 1960 - ADRIANA DE BLANCO v. STA. CLARA TRANS. CO.

    109 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-14107 August 31, 1960 - MIGUEL MENDIOLA, ET AL. v. RICARDO TANCINCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. L-14184 August 31, 1960 - IN RE: PABLO UY YAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. L-14357 August 31, 1960 - JOHANNA H. BORROMEO v. EZEQUIEL ZABALLERO, SR.

    109 Phil 332

  • G.R. No. L-14363 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARIDAD CAPISTRANO

    109 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. L-14601 August 31,1960

    PNB v. EMILIANO DE LA VIÑA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. L-14835 August 31, 1960 - PONCIANO MEDEL, ET AL. v. JULIAN CALASANZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. L-14959 August 31, 1960 - REPUBLIC SAVINGS BANK v. FAR EASTERN SURETY & INS. CO., INC.

    109 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-15153 August 31, 1960 - LUCIO BALONAN v. EUSEBIA ABELLANA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-15186 August 31, 1960 - GONZALO G. DE GUZMAN v. ALFREDO TRINIDAD, ET AL.

    109 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. L-15325 August 31, 1960 - PROV’L. FISCAL OF RIZAL v. HON. JUDGE CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. L-15375 August 31, 1960 - BALTAZAR RAGPALA, ET AL. v. J. P. OF TUBOD, LANAO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. L-15474 August 31, 1960 - ALFREDO B. SAULO v. BRIG. GEN. PELAGIO CRUZ, ETC.

    109 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-15590 August 31, 1960 - ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL, INC. v. CORAZON SEGOVIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-15633 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRIMITIVO D. ALA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 390