Joselito R. Pimentel, petitioner vs Maria Chrysantine L.
Pimentel and the People of the Philippines,
respondents. GR. No. 172060 September 13, 2010 FACTS: On October 25, 2004, Maria Chrysantine Pimentel y Lacap (private respondent) filed an action for frustrated parricide against Joselito R. Pimentel (petitioner and husband of the private respondent) before the RTC of Quezon City. Petitioner also received summons for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity which then petitioner filed an urgent motion to suspend the proceedings of the criminal case on the ground of the existence of prejudicial question. The RTC ruled on May 13, 2005 that the case was not of prejudicial question and was denied due to lack of merit. Petitioner appealed but was denied by RTC dated August 22, 2005, which was followed by a petition for certiorari with application for a writ of preliminary injunction and or temporary restraining order before the Court of Appeals, assailing orders (May 13 and August 22)of the RTC Quezon City. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. The CA ruled that even if marriage between petitioner and respondent would be void, it would be immaterial to the criminal case of frustrated parricide. Petitioner filed petition for review, hence this case. ISSUE: Whether or not the resolution of the action for annulment of marriage is a prejudicial question that warrants the suspension of the criminal case for frustrated parricide RULING: No. The elements of Prejudicial Question are (1) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action. The case however, shows that the criminal case was filed first, then was followed by the summons for the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage (civil case). The rule was clear that civil action must be instituted first before filing of the criminal action. (2) the resolution of each issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. The relationship between the offender and the victim distinguishes the crime of parricide from murder or homicide. However, the issue of both cases are entirely different. In this case, the petitioner was charged of frustrated parricide the issue is whether or not 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 petitioner's will. The subsequent dissolution of their marriage is granted, will have no effect on the alleged crime that was committed at the time of the subsistence of the marriage. In short, the nullity of the marriage will not affect the criminal liability of the petitioner. Therefore, the petition was DENIED. And the decision of the CA was AFFIRMED. Notes: Prejudicial Question: defined as 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. The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting questions.
Alan Scott - New Critical Writings in Political Sociology Volume Three - Globalization and Contemporary Challenges To The Nation-State (2009, Ashgate - Routledge) PDF