Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

Donato vs Luna FACTS Petitioner Leonilo Donato is being sued by the City Fiscal of Manila for the crime

of bigamy based on the complaint of private respondent Paz Abayan. That same year, Abayan filed with the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Manila a civil action for declaration of nullity of her marriage with petitioner based on the ground that she consented to entering into the marriage, which was petitioner Donatos second one, since she had no previous knowledge that petitioner was already married to another. In his answer, Donato stated that his second marriage was void because it was solemnized without a license and that force, violence, intimidation and undue influence were employed by Abayan to obtain his consent to the marriage. Prior to their marriage, petitioner and private respondent had lived together for five years as evidenced by a joint affidavit they executed, and for which reason the requisite marriage license was dispensed with pursuant to the provision on marriages of exceptional character. Petitioner filed a motion to suspend the proceedings of the criminal case against him contending that the civil case seeking the annulment of his second marriage filed by the private respondent raises a prejudicial question, which must first be determined before the criminal case can proceed. ISSUE WON a criminal case for bigamy should be suspended in view of a pending civil case for annulment of marriage, on the ground that the latter constitutes a prejudicial question No. In prejudicial questions, the decision of the civil case must be determinative of the guilt/innocence of the accused in the civil case. This is not so in the case at bar. At the time the petitioner was indicted for bigamy, it is indisputable that, two marriage ceremonies have been contracted by him. The civil case of annulment pending with another court does not change that fact. In order that a case of annulment of marriage can be considered a prejudicial question to the bigamy case against the accused, it must be shown that the petitioners consent to such marriage must be the one that was obtained by means of duress, force and intimidation to show that his act in the second marriage must be involuntary and cannot be the basis of his conviction for the crime of bigamy. And this, the petitioner did not sufficiently proved because of the fact that before he contracted his marriage with the

HELD

petitioner, he had been living with her as husband and wife and even entered into a joint affidavit with her stating so, so that they could contract the marriage. It was only when private respondent learned of his previous marriage and left him, that they parted ways. Also, his allegation of such vitiated consent on his part came only later as an answer to the petition for annulment filed by the private respondent belying his argument.

S-ar putea să vă placă și