Case Digest (G.R. No. 172060)
Facts:
- In "Pimentel v. Pimentel," Joselito R. Pimentel was accused of frustrated parricide by Maria Chrysantine L. Pimentel.
- The criminal case (Criminal Case No. Q-04-130415) was filed on October 25, 2004, before the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 223.
- On February 7, 2005, Joselito received a summons to appear before the RTC of Antipolo City, Branch 72, for the pre-trial and trial of Civil Case No. 04-7392.
- The civil case was a petition for the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Section 36 of the Family Code on the ground of psychological incapacity, filed by Maria Chrysantine.
- On February 11, 2005, Joselito filed an urgent motion to suspend the criminal proceedings, arguing that the civil case for annulment of marriage constituted a prejudicial question.
- The RTC Quezon City denied this motion on May 13, 2005, and denied Joselito's motion for reconsideration on August 22, 2005.
- Joselito filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed his petition on March 20, 2006.
- Joselito then filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, challenging the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
- The Court ruled that the resolution of the civil action for annulment of marriage is not a prejudicial questio...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The Supreme Court's decision was based on several legal principles and rules.
- Under Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, a prejudicial question requires that the civil action must be instituted before the criminal action.
- In this case, the criminal case for frustrated parricide was filed before the civil case for annulment of marriage, thus failing to meet the requirement.
- A prejudicial question exists when the resolution of the issue in the civil action would determine the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case.
- The issue in the civil case for annulment of marriage (psychological incapacity) is not similar or intimately related to the issue in the criminal case for frustrated parricide (acts of execution that would have killed Maria Chrysantine but did not produce the result due to causes independent of Joselito's will).
- The relationship between the offender and the victim is a key element in the crime of parricide, d...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 172060)
Facts:
In the case of "Pimentel v. Pimentel," the petitioner, Joselito R. Pimentel, was accused of frustrated parricide by the private respondent, Maria Chrysantine L. Pimentel. The criminal case, docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-04-130415, was filed on October 25, 2004, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 223. Subsequently, on February 7, 2005, Joselito received a summons to appear before the RTC of Antipolo City, Branch 72, for the pre-trial and trial of Civil Case No. 04-7392, which was a petition for the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Section 36 of the Family Code on the ground of psychological incapacity, filed by Maria Chrysantine.
On February 11, 2005, Joselito filed an urgent motion to suspend the criminal proceedings in the RTC Quezon City, arguing that the civil case for annulment of marriage constituted a prejudicial question that should be resolved first. The RTC Quezon City denied this motion on May 13, 2005, and subsequently denied Joselito's motion for reconsideration on August 22, 2005. Joselito then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which also dismissed his petition on March 20, 2006. Joselito subsequently filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, challenging the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Issue:
The main issue in this case is whether the resolution of the action for annulment of marriage constitutes a prejudicial question that warrants the suspension of the criminal case for frustrated parricide agains...