Case Digest (G.R. No. 10174)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 10174)
Facts:
Rolando Landicho v. Hon. Lorenzo Relova, G.R. No. L-22579, February 23, 1968, the Supreme Court En Banc, Fernando, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Rolando Landicho sought certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction to prevent respondent Judge Lorenzo Relova, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Batangas, Branch I, from continuing the prosecution of a criminal complaint for bigamy.On February 27, 1963 petitioner was charged by information in the Court of First Instance of Batangas with bigamy; the information alleged that he was then lawfully married to Elvira Makatangay and thereafter contracted a second marriage with Fe Lourdes Pasia. On March 15, 1963 Pasia (the second spouse) filed a civil action in the same court seeking to have her marriage to petitioner declared null and void ab initio for alleged force, threats and intimidation and because of its allegedly bigamous character.
While the civil action was pending, on June 15, 1963 petitioner, as defendant in the annulment suit, filed a third-party complaint against his first spouse Elvira Makatangay asking that his marriage with her be declared null and void on the ground that it was contracted under duress. On October 7, 1963 petitioner moved in the criminal case to suspend hearing pending resolution of the civil questions on the validity of the marriages; respondent Judge Relova denied the motion on November 19, 1963, and denied reconsideration on March 2, 1964.
Petitioner filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction on March 13, 1964. By resolution of March 17, 1964 the Court required respondent Judge to answer within ten days and issued a preliminary injunction restraining further prosecution; an amended petition adding the People of the Philippines was admitted April 3, 1964. Respondent Judge answered May 14, 1964, contending that the existence of civil actions for annulment did not automatically raise prejudicial questions warranting suspension of the criminal case and relying on Viada and prior Supreme Court decisions. The Court resolved the petition and dissolved the preliminary injunction.
Issues:
- Whether the civil action for annulment filed by the second spouse and the third-party complaint filed by petitioner against the first spouse constitute a prejudicial question requiring suspension of the criminal prosecution for bigamy.
- Whether respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to suspend the criminal proceedings.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)