Case Digest (G.R. No. L-71033)
Facts:
Arthur Te and Liliana Choa were civilly married on September 14, 1988; a child was born April 21, 1989, and on May 20, 1990 petitioner contracted a second marriage with Julieta Santella. A complaint for bigamy was filed August 9, 1990 (Criminal Case No. Q-90-14409), petitioner filed for annulment of his first marriage July 20, 1990, and private respondent lodged an administrative complaint with the Professional Regulation Commission on November 8, 1990 seeking revocation of petitioner's license; the RTC denied petitioner’s demurrer to evidence and motion to inhibit, the Court of Appeals denied certiorari relief in consolidated CA-G.R. SP Nos. 23971 and 26178 on August 31, 1994 and denied reconsideration October 18, 1996.
Issues:
- Did the pendency of the civil annulment case constitute a prejudicial question warranting suspension of the criminal and administrative proceedings?
- Was the denial of petitioner’s demurrer to evidence in the bigamy prosecution erroneous?
- Should Judge Peralejo have granted petitioner’s motion to inhibit for alleged bias?
Ruling:
The petition was DENIED for lack of merit. The Court held that the annulment action did not present a prejudicial question to suspend the criminal or administrative proceedings; the denial of the demurrer to evidence was proper absent grave abuse of discretion; and the motion to inhibit was correctly denied for lack of clear and convincing proof of bias.
Ratio:
The Court explained that a prejudicial question exists only where resolution of the civil issue would necessarily determine the accused’s guilt, and under Article 40 of the Family Code a prior marriage remains valid until declared void by final judgment; thus the pendency of the annulment did not negate the subsistence element of bigamy. The PRC Board rightly proceeded under Section 32 of its Rules, which forbids suspension of administrative proceedings by the mere pendency of civil or criminal cases. The trial court’s denial of the demurrer was an exercise of discretion given the prosecution had established a prima facie case, and such denial was not an adjudication on the merits but a determination that a trial was warranted under Section 15, Rule 119; finally, allegations of hostile remarks did not constitute the clear and convincing proof of partiality required under Section 1, Rule 137.
Doctrine:
- A civil action is a prejudicial question to suspend a criminal prosecution only if its resolution would necessarily determine the accused’s guilt.
- (Get Pro to unlock 4 more doctrines)