EN BANC

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

ABUNDIO MERCED, petitioner, vs. HON. CLEMENTINO V. DIEZ, ETC. ET

AL., respondents.

Pedro A. Bandoquillo for petitioner.

Fulvio Peláez 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 vs.
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.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com

 DECISION

LABRADOR, J : p

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
vs. 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:
"The undersigned Assistant Fiscal of the City of Cebu accuses Abundio
Merced of the crime of bigamy, committed as follows:
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.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 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 vs. 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:
"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 vs. 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
vs. Dumpo, 62 Phil., 246, where we said:
"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 vs. 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 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 vs.
Mabanag, 70 Phil., 207 thus:
"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 carácter prejudicial y debe resolverse antes que una
cuestión criminal, cuando versa sobre un hecho distinto y separado del delito,
pero tan íntimamente ligado a él que determina la culpabilidad o inocencia del
acusado. Por ejemplo, una acción criminal por bigamia."
The majority decision in said case of De Leon vs. 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:
"Hablando en términos generales la facultad del Fiscal y su deber de
perseguir los delitos no deben ser controlados ni coartados por los tribunales;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 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 vs.
Mabanag, 70 Phil., 207.)
The case of People vs. 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 vs. 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 vs. Abundio Merced, is hereby set aside and the
preliminary injunction issued by this Court to that effect is hereby made permanent. So
ordered.
Parás, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepción, Reyes, J.B.L.,
Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com