Case Digest (G.R. No. L-15315)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-15315)
Facts:
Abundio Merced v. Hon. Clementino V. Diez, etc. et al., G.R. No. L-15315, was promulgated on August 26, 1960 by the Supreme Court En Banc, Labrador, J., writing for the Court. The petition sought a writ of certiorari with prohibition to restrain the presiding judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental, Hon. Clementino V. Diez, from proceeding with Criminal Case No. V-6520 (People v. Abundio Merced) until final termination of Civil Case No. R-5387 (annulment of marriage).On January 30, 1958 petitioner Abundio Merced filed Civil Case No. R-5387 for annulment of his second marriage to Elizabeth Ceasar. The complaint alleged that Merced was coerced by defendant and her relatives into signing an affidavit and into marrying Elizabeth on August 21, 1957, and that he immediately left her after the ceremony; he sought annulment and P2,000 moral damages. On March 3, 1958 Elizabeth answered, denying material allegations, pleaded factual defenses (including that Merced had represented he had broken an engagement with a prior fiancée), and counterclaimed P50,000 for deceit and fraud.
On February 19, 1958 Elizabeth filed a criminal complaint for bigamy against Merced with the City Fiscal of Cebu; on April 7, 1958 the Assistant City Fiscal filed Criminal Case No. V-6520, charging Merced with bigamy allegedly committed on August 21, 1957 (information invoked Article 349, Revised Penal Code). Merced moved to hold the criminal trial in abeyance pending final judgment in Civil Case No. R-5387, arguing that the civil action involved facts which, if proved, would determine his innocence. The trial court initially granted the motion but, after the fiscal's motion for reconsideration, set aside that order and entered another denying suspension of criminal proceedings. Merced then filed the present petition for certiorari with prohibition in the Supreme Court and obtained a preliminary injunction enjoining the respondent judge from further proceeding in the criminal case.
The sole question argued before the Court was whether the pending action to annul the second marriage was a prejudicial question that must be resolved before prosecution for bigamy could proceed.
Issues:
- Is an action to annul the second marriage a prejudicial question in a prosecution for bigamy?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)