G.R. No.

L-53642 April 15, 1988

LEONILO C. DONATO, petitioners,
vs.
HON. ARTEMON D. LUNA, RE!IDING "UDGE, COURT O# #IR!T IN!TANCE O# MANIIA, $RANCH %%%II HON. "O!E #LAMINIANO, CIT& #I!CAL O#
MANILA' A( $. A$A&AN, respondents.
#ACT!:
The pertinent facts as set forth in the records follow. On January 23, 1979, the City iscal of !anila actin" thru #ssistant City iscal #$ado %. Cantor filed an
infor$ation for &i"a$y a"ainst herein petitioner, 'eonilo C. (onato with the Court of irst )nstance of !anila. The infor$ation was filed &ased on the co$plaint of
private respondent *a+ ,. #&ayan.
On -epte$&er 2., 1979, &efore the petitioner/s arrai"n$ent, private respondent filed with the Juvenile and (o$estic 0elations Court of !anila a civil action for
declaration of nullity of her $arria"e with petitioner contracted on -epte$&er 21, 197., &ased on the "round that private respondent consented to enterin" into the
$arria"e, which was petitioner (onato/s second one, since she had no previous 2nowled"e that petitioner was already $arried to a certain 0osalinda 0. !alupin"
on June 33, 197..
*etitioner (onato/s answer in the civil case for nullity interposed the defense that his second $arria"e was void since it was sole$ni+ed without a $arria"e license
and that force, violence, inti$idation and undue influence were e$ployed &y private respondent to o&tain petitioner/s consent to the $arria"e. *rior to the
sole$ni+ation of the su&se4uent or second $arria"e, petitioner and private respondent had lived to"ether and deported the$selves as hus&and and wife without
the &enefit of wedloc2 for a period of at least five years as evidenced &y a 5oint affidavit e6ecuted &y the$ on -epte$&er 21, 197., for which reason, the re4uisite
$arria"e license was dispensed with pursuant to #rticle 71 of the %ew Civil Code pertainin" to $arria"es of e6ceptional character.
*rior to the date set for the trial on the $erits of Cri$inal Case %o. 73887, p)*i*io+)r ,il)- . /o*io+ *o 010p)+- *2) pro3))-i+40 o, 0.i- 3.0) 3o+*)+-i+4 *2.*
Ci5il C.0) No. E-62627 0))8i+4 *2) .++1l/)+* o, 2i0 0)3o+- /.rri.4) ,il)- 9: pri5.*) r)0po+-)+* r.i0)0 . pr);1-i3i.l <1)0*io+ =2i32 /10* ,ir0* 9)
-)*)r/i+)- or -)3i-)- 9),or) *2) 3ri/i+.l 3.0) 3.+ pro3))-.
)n an order dated #pril 7, 19.3. 9on. #rte$on (. 'una denied the $otion to suspend the proceedin"s in Cri$inal Case %o. 73887 for &i"a$y. 0espondent 5ud"e/s
&asis for denial is the rulin" laid down in the case of Landicho vs. Relova.
1
The order further directed that the proceedin"s in the cri$inal case can proceed as
scheduled.
# $otion for reconsideration was flied &y herein petitioner thru counsel citin" as one of his "rounds for suspension of proceedin"s the rulin" laid down &y this
Court in the case of De la Cruz vs. Ejercito
2
which was a $uch later case than that cited &y respondent 5ud"e in his order of denial.
The $otion for reconsideration of the said order was li2ewise denied in an order dated #pril 17, 19.3, for lac2 of $erit. 9ence, the present petition for certiorari and
prohi&ition with preli$inary in5unction.
I!!UE:
:hether or not a cri$inal case for &i"a$y pendin" &efore the Court of irst )tance of !anila should &e suspended in view of a civil case for annul$ent of $arria"e
pendin" &efore the Juvenile and (o$estic 0elations Court on the "round that the latter constitutes a pre5udicial 4uestion.
RULING:
T2) r)<1i0i*)0 o, . pr);1-i3i.l <1)0*io+ -o +o* o9*.i+ i+ *2) 3.0) .* 9.r.
# pr);1-i3i.l <1)0*io+ has &een defined to &e one which arises in a case, the resolution of which 4uestion is a lo"ical antecedent of the issue involved in said
case, and the co"ni+ance of which pertains to another tri&unal.
3
)t is one &ased on a fact distinct and separate fro$ the cri$e &ut so inti$ately connected with it
that it deter$ines the "uilt or innocence of the accused, and for it to suspend the cri$inal action, it $ust appear not only that said case involves facts inti$ately
related to those upon which the cri$inal prosecution would &e &ased &ut also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the "uilt or
innocence of the accused would necessarily &e deter$ined.
4
# pre5udicial 4uestion usually co$es into play in a situation where a civil action and a cri$inal action
$ay proceed, &ecause howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would &e deter$inative juris et de jure of the "uilt or innocence of the accused in a
cri$inal case.

T2) r)<1i0i*)0 o, . pr);1-i3i.l <1)0*io+ -o +o* o9*.i+ i+ *2) 3.0) .* 9.r. )t $ust &e noted that the issue &efore the Juvenile and (o$estic 0elations Court
touchin" upon the nullity of the second $arria"e is not deter$inative of petitioner (onato/s "uilt or innocence in the cri$e of &i"a$y. urther$ore, it was
petitioner/s second wife, the herein private respondent *a+ ,. #&ayan who filed the co$plaint for annul$ent of the second $arria"e on the "round that her
consent was o&tained throu"h deceit.
*etitioner (onato raised the ar"u$ent that the second $arria"e should have &een declared null and void on the "round of force, threats and inti$idation alle"edly
e$ployed a"ainst hi$ &y private respondent only so$eti$e later when he was re4uired to answer the civil action for anul$ent of the second $arria"e. )n the case
at &ar, petitioner has not even sufficiently shown that his consent to the second $arria"e has &een o&tained &y the use of threats, force and inti$idation.
)*i*io+)r Do+.*o 3.++o* .ppl: *2) r1l) o+ pr);1-i3i.l <1)0*io+0 0i+3) . 3.0) ,or .++1l/)+* o, /.rri.4) 3.+ 9) 3o+0i-)r)- .0 . pr);1-i3i.l <1)0*io+ *o
*2) 9i4./: 3.0) .4.i+0* *2) .3310)- o+l: i, i* i0 pro5)- *2.* *2) p)*i*io+)r>0 3o+0)+* *o 0132 /.rri.4) =.0 o9*.i+)- 9: /).+0 o, -1r)00, 5iol)+3) .+-
i+*i/i-.*io+ i+ or-)r *o )0*.9li02 *2.* 2i0 .3* i+ *2) 0190)<1)+* /.rri.4) =.0 .+ i+5ol1+*.r: o+) .+- .0 0132 *2) 0./) 3.++o* 9) *2) 9.0i0 ,or
3o+5i3*io+. T2) pr)3)-i+4 )l)/)+*0 -o +o* )?i0* i+ *2) 3.0) .* 9.r.
O&viously, petitioner $erely raised the issue of pre5udicial 4uestion to evade the prosecution of the cri$inal case. The records reveal that prior to petitioner/s
second $arria"e on -epte$&er 21, 197., he had &een livin" with private respondent *a+ ,. #&ayan as hus&and and wife for $ore than five years without the
&enefit of $arria"e. Thus, petitioner/s aver$ents that his consent was o&tained &y private respondent throu"h force, violence, inti$idation and undue influence in
enterin" a su&se4uent $arria"e is &elied &y the fact that &oth petitioner and private respondent e6ecuted an affidavit which stated that they had lived to"ether as
hus&and and wife without &enefit of $arria"e for five years, one $onth and one day until their $arital union was for$ally ratified &y the second $arria"e and that it
was private respondent who eventually filed the civil action for nullity.
#nother event which $ilitates a"ainst petitioner/s contentions is the fact that it was only when Civil Case %o. ;<32127 was filed on -epte$&er 2., 1979, or $ore
than the lapse of one year fro$ the sole$ni+ation of the second $arria"e that petitioner ca$e up with the story that his consent to the $arria"e was secured
throu"h the use of force, violence, inti$idation and undue influence. *etitioner also continued to live with private respondent until %ove$&er 197., when the latter
left their a&ode upon learnin" that 'eonilo (onato was already previously $arried.
#ccordin"ly, there &ein" no pre5udicial 4uestion shown to e6it the order of denial issued &y the respondent 5ud"e dated #pril 17, 19.3 should &e sustained.