SOORDERED.

Bersamin,DelCastillo,**Villarama,Jr.andSereno,JJ.,concur.

Judgment reversed and set aside, appellant Julius Gadiana y

Repolloacquittedandorderedreleased.

Note.Noncompliancebytheapprehending/buybustteamwith
Section21isnotfatalaslongasthereisjustifiablegroundtherefor,
and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
confiscated/seized items, are properly preserved by the
apprehendingofficer/team.(Bondad,Jr.vs.People,573SCRA497
[2008])
o0o

G.R.No.172060.September13,2010.*

JOSELITOR.PIMENTEL,petitioner,vs.MARIACHRYSANTINE
L.PIMENTELandPEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,respondents.

CriminalProcedureActionsSection7,Rule117ofthe2000Ruleson
Criminal Procedure is clear that the civil action must be instituted first
beforethefilingofthecriminalaction.Theruleisclearthatthecivilaction
mustbeinstitutedfirstbeforethefilingofthecriminalaction.Inthiscase,
the Information for Frustrated Parricide was dated 30 August 2004. It was
raffledtoRTCQuezonCityon25October2004asperthestampeddateof
receiptontheInformation.TheRTCQuezonCitysetCriminalCaseNo.Q
04130415forpretrialandtrialon14February2005.Petitionerwasserved
summonsinCivilCaseNo.047392on7February2005.

_______________

**AdditionalmemberperSpecialOrderNo.879datedAugust13,2010.

*SECONDDIVISION.

437

VOL.630,SEPTEMBER13,2010 437

Pimentelvs.Peimentel
Respondents petition in Civil Case No. 047392 was dated 4 November
2004 and was filed on 5 November 2004. Clearly, the civil case for
annulment was filed after the filing of the criminal case for frustrated
parricide.Assuch,therequirementofSection7,Rule111ofthe2000Rules
on Criminal Procedure was not met since the civil action was filed
subsequenttothefilingofthecriminalaction.
Parricide Prejudicial Questions Annulment of Marriage Annulment
of marriage is not a prejudicial question in criminal case for parricide.
Annulment of marriage is not a prejudicial question in criminal case for
parricide. Further, the resolution of the civil action is not a prejudicial
questionthatwouldwarrantthesuspensionofthecriminalaction.Thereisa
prejudicial question when a civil action and a criminal action are both
pending, and there exists in the civil action an issue which must be
preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed because
howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be
determinativeoftheguiltorinnocenceoftheaccusedinthecriminalcase.
Same Same Same The issue in the annulment of marriage is not
similarorintimatelyrelatedtotheissueinthecriminalcaseforparricide.
Further, the relationship between the offender and the victim is not
determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused.The relationship
between the offender and the victim is a key element in the crime of
parricide, which punishes any person who shall kill his father, mother, or
child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants or
descendants, or his spouse. The relationship between the offender and the
victim distinguishes the crime of parricide from murder or homicide.
However,theissueintheannulmentofmarriageisnotsimilarorintimately
related to the issue in the criminal case for parricide. Further, the
relationship between the offender and the victim is not determinative of the
guiltorinnocenceoftheaccused.
Same Same Same Even if the marriage between petitioner and
respondent is annulled, petitioner could still be held criminally liable since
at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, he was still married to
respondent.The issue in the civil case for annulment of marriage under
Article 36 of the Family Code is whether petitioner is psychologically
incapacitate d to comply with the essential marital obligations. The issue in
parricide is whether the accused killed the victim. In this case, since
petitionerwaschargedwith

438

438 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Pimentelvs.Peimentel

frustrated parricide, the issue is whether he performed all the acts of

execution which would have killed respondent as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of
petitioners will. At the time of the commission of the alleged crime,
petitionerandrespondentweremarried.Thesubsequentdissolutionoftheir
marriage,incasethepetitioninCivilCaseNo.047392isgranted,willhave
no effect on the alleged crime that was committed at the time of the
subsistenceofthemarriage.Inshort,evenifthemarriagebetweenpetitioner
and respondent is annulled, petitioner could still be held criminally liable
sinceatthetimeofthecommissionoftheallegedcrime,hewasstillmarried
torespondent.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of

Appeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
AugustusCesarE.Azuraforpetitioner.
EduardoFabianforprivaterespondent.

CARPIO,J.:

TheCase

BeforetheCourtisapetitionforreview1assailingtheDecision2
of the Court of Appeals, promulgated on 20 March 2006, in CA
G.R.SPNo.91867.

TheAntecedentFacts

ThefactsarestatedintheCourtofAppealsdecision:
On 25 October 2004, Maria Chrysantine Pimentel y Lacap
(private respondent) filed an action for frustrated parricide against
JoselitoR.Pimentel(petitioner),docketedasCriminal

_______________

1UnderRule45ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure.
2 Rollo, pp. 2734. Penned by Associate Justice Regalado E. Maambong with
AssociateJusticesRodrigoV.CosicoandLucenitoN.Tagle,concurring.

439

VOL.630,SEPTEMBER13,2010 439
Pimentelvs.Peimentel

CaseNo.Q04130415,beforetheRegionalTrialCourtofQuezon
City,whichwasraffledtoBranch223(RTCQuezonCity).
On 7 February 2005, petitioner received summons to appear
before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, Branch 72 (RTC
Antipolo) for the pretrial and trial of Civil Case No. 047392
(Maria Chrysantine Lorenza L. Pimentel v. Joselito Pimentel) for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Section 36 of the Family
Codeonthegroundofpsychologicalincapacity.
On 11 February 2005, petitioner filed an urgent motion to
suspendtheproceedingsbeforetheRTCQuezonCityontheground
of the existence of a prejudicial question. Petitioner asserted that
since the relationship between the offender and the victim is a key
elementinparricide,theoutcomeofCivilCaseNo.047392would
haveabearinginthecriminalcasefiledagainsthimbeforetheRTC
QuezonCity.

TheDecisionoftheTrialCourt

The RTC Quezon City issued an Order dated 13 May 20053

holdingthatthependencyofthecasebeforetheRTCAntipoloisnot
a prejudicial question that warrants the suspension of the criminal
casebeforeit.TheRTCQuezonCityheldthattheissuesinCriminal
CaseNo.Q04130415aretheinjuriessustainedbyrespondentand
whether the case could be tried even if the validity of petitioners
marriage with respondent is in question. The RTC Quezon City
ruled:

WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing, the Motion to Suspend

Proceedings On the [Ground] of the Existence of a Prejudicial Question is,
forlackofmerit,DENIED.
SOORDERED.4

_______________

3Id.,atpp.5051.PennedbyPresidingJudgeRamonA.Cruz.
4Id.,atp.51.

440

440 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Pimentelvs.Peimentel

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. In its 22 August

2005Order,5theRTCQuezonCitydeniedthemotion.
Petitionerfiledapetitionforcertiorariwithapplicationforawrit
ofpreliminaryinjunctionand/ortemporaryrestrainingorderbefore
the Court of Appeals, assailing the 13 May 2005 and 22 August
2005OrdersoftheRTCQuezonCity.

TheDecisionoftheCourtofAppeals

In its 20 March 2006 Decision, the Court of Appeals dismissed

thepetition.TheCourtofAppealsruledthatinthecriminalcasefor
frustrated parricide, the issue is whether the offender commenced
thecommissionofthecrimeofparricidedirectlybyovertactsand
didnotperformalltheactsofexecutionbyreasonofsomecauseor
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. On the other
hand, the issue in the civil action for annulment of marriage is
whether petitioner is psychologically incapacitated to comply with
the essential marital obligations. The Court of Appeals ruled that
even if the marriage between petitioner and respondent would be
declared void, it would be immaterial to the criminal case because
prior to the declaration of nullity, the alleged acts constituting the
crimeoffrustratedparricidehadalreadybeencommitted.TheCourt
ofAppealsruledthatallthatisrequiredforthechargeoffrustrated
parricide is that at the time of the commission of the crime, the
marriageisstillsubsisting.
Petitioner filed a petition for review before this Court assailing
theCourtofAppealsdecision.

TheIssue

Theonlyissueinthiscaseiswhethertheresolutionoftheaction
forannulmentofmarriageisaprejudicialquestion

_______________

5Id.,atp.53.

441

VOL.630,SEPTEMBER13,2010 441
Pimentelvs.Peimentel

that warrants the suspension of the criminal case for frustrated

parricideagainstpetitioner.

TheRulingofthisCourt

Thepetitionhasnomerit.
CivilCaseMustbeInstituted
BeforetheCriminalCase
Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure6
provides:

Section7.Elements of Prejudicial Question.The elements of a

prejudicialquestionare:(a)thepreviouslyinstitutedcivilactioninvolvesan
issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent
criminal action and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or
notthecriminalactionmayproceed.

The rule is clear that the civil action must be instituted first
beforethefilingofthecriminalaction.Inthiscase,theInformation7
forFrustratedParricidewasdated30August2004.Itwasraffledto
RTC Quezon City on 25 October 2004 as per the stamped date of
receiptontheInformation.TheRTCQuezonCitysetCriminalCase
No. Q04130415 for pretrial and trial on 14 February 2005.
Petitioner was served summons in Civil Case No. 047392 on 7
February 2005.8 Respondents petition9 in Civil Case No. 047392
was dated 4 November 2004 and was filed on 5 November 2004.
Clearly,thecivilcaseforannulmentwasfiledafterthefilingofthe
criminal case for frustrated parricide. As such, the requirement of
Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure was
notmetsincethecivilactionwasfiledsubsequenttothefilingofthe
criminalaction.

_______________

6Dated1December2000.
7Rollo,p.54.
8Id.,atp.56.
9Id.,atpp.6165.

442

442 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Pimentelvs.Peimentel

AnnulmentofMarriageisnotaPrejudicialQuestion
inCriminalCaseforParricide

Further, the resolution of the civil action is not a prejudicial

questionthatwouldwarrantthesuspensionofthecriminalaction.
Thereisaprejudicialquestionwhenacivilactionandacriminal
actionarebothpending,andthereexistsinthecivilactionanissue
whichmustbepreemptivelyresolvedbeforethecriminalactionmay
proceed because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is
resolved would be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the
accusedinthecriminalcase.10Aprejudicialquestionisdefinedas:

x x x one that arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical

antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which
pertains to another tribunal. It is a question based on a fact distinct and
separatefromthecrimebutsointimatelyconnectedwithitthatitdetermines
the guilt or innocence of the accused, and for it to suspend the criminal
action,itmustappearnotonlythatsaidcaseinvolvesfactsintimatelyrelated
tothoseuponwhichthecriminalprosecutionwouldbebasedbutalsothatin
the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or
innocenceoftheaccusedwouldnecessarilybedetermined.11

The relationship between the offender and the victim is a key

elementinthecrimeofparricide,12whichpunishesanypersonwho
shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, or any of his ascendants or descendants, or his
spouse.13 The relationship between the offender and the victim
distinguishesthecrimeofparricidefrommur

_______________

10Josev.Suarez,G.R.No.176795,30June2008,556SCRA773.
11Gov.Sandiganbayan,G.R.Nos.15032930,11September2007,532SCRA574,
577578.
12Peoplev.Dalag,450Phil.304402SCRA254(2003).
13Article246oftheRevisedPenalCode.

443

VOL.630,SEPTEMBER13,2010 443
Pimentelvs.Peimentel

der14 or homicide.15 However, the issue in the annulment of

marriage is not similar or intimately related to the issue in the
criminal case for parricide. Further, the relationship between the
offenderandthevictimisnotdeterminativeoftheguiltorinnocence
oftheaccused.
The issue in the civil case for annulment of marriage under
Article 36 of the Family Code is whether petitioner is
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations.Theissueinparricideiswhethertheaccusedkilledthe
victim. In this case, since petitioner was charged with frustrated
parricide,theissueiswhetherheperformedalltheactsofexecution
which would have killed respondent as a consequence but which,
nevertheless,didnotproduceitbyreasonofcausesindependentof
petitioners will.16 At the time of the commission of the alleged
crime, petitioner and respondent were married. The subsequent
dissolutionoftheirmarriage,incasethepetitioninCivilCaseNo.
047392isgranted,willhavenoeffectontheallegedcrimethatwas
committed at the time of the subsistence of the marriage. In short,
evenifthemarriagebetweenpetitionerandrespondentisannulled,
petitionercouldstillbeheldcriminallyliablesinceatthetimeofthe
commissionoftheallegedcrime,hewasstillmarriedtorespondent.
We cannot accept petitioners reliance on Tenebro v. Court of
Appeals17that the judicialdeclaration of the nullity of a marriage
onthegroundofpsychologicalincapacityretroactstothedateofthe
celebration of the marriage insofar as the vinculum between the
spousesisconcernedxxx.First,theissueinTenebroistheeffect
of the judicial declaration of nullity of a second or subsequent
marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity on a criminal
liabilityforbigamy.
_______________

14Article248oftheRevisedPenalCode.
15Article249oftheRevisedPenalCode.
16SeeArticle6oftheRevisedPenalCode.
17467Phil.723423SCRA272(2004).

444

444 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Pimentelvs.Peimentel

Therewasnoissueofprejudicialquestioninthatcase.Second,
theCourtruledinTenebrothat[t]hereisxxxarecognitionwritten
intothelawitselfthatsuchamarriage,althoughvoidabinitio,may
still produce legal consequences.18 In fact, the Court declared in
thatcasethatadeclarationofthenullityofthesecondmarriageon
thegroundofpsychologicalincapacityisofabsolutelynomoment
insofarastheStatespenallawsareconcerned.19
In view of the foregoing, the Court upholds the decision of the
CourtofAppeals.ThetrialinCriminalCaseNo.Q04130415may
proceedastheresolutionoftheissueinCivilCaseNo.047392is
not determinative of the guilt or innocence of petitioner in the
criminalcase.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the 20
March 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No.
91867.
SOORDERED.

Peralta,Bersamin,**AbadandVillarama,Jr.,***JJ.,concur.

Petitiondenied,judgmentaffirmed.

Note.Therationalebehindtheprincipleofprejudicialquestion
is to avoid two conflicting decisions. (Jose vs. Suarez, 556 SCRA
773[2008])
o0o

_______________

18Id.,atp.744p.284.Italicizationintheoriginal.
19Id.,atp.742p.282.
** Designated additional member per Special Order No. 886 dated 1 September
2010.
***DesignatedadditionalmemberperRaffledated8September2010.
Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.