Case Summary (G.R. No. L-22579)
Nature of Charges and Civil Proceedings
On February 27, 1963, Landicho was charged with bigamy for allegedly contracting a second marriage to Fe Lourdes Pasia while already married to Elvira Makatangay, without a legal dissolution of the first marriage. Subsequently, Pasia filed a lawsuit on March 15, 1963, aiming to declare her marriage with Landicho null and void due to alleged coercion. In response, Landicho filed a third-party complaint against Makatangay, seeking annulment of his first marriage on similar grounds of coercion.
Motion to Suspend Criminal Proceedings
On October 7, 1963, Landicho requested that the criminal proceedings for bigamy be suspended pending the resolution of the civil suit regarding the validity of both marriages. Respondent Judge Relova denied this motion on November 19, 1963, and a motion for reconsideration subsequently was also denied on March 2, 1964. These denials prompted Landicho to file a petition for certiorari on March 13, 1964.
Court Procedures and Filings
Following the filing of the petition, the Supreme Court issued a resolution on March 17, 1964, requiring Respondent Judge Relova to respond within ten days and granting a preliminary injunction to restrain further prosecution of the bigamy charge. Landicho later amended his petition to include the People of the Philippines as a respondent, which was accepted by the Supreme Court on April 3, 1964.
Respondent's Defense
In the answer submitted on May 14, 1964, the Respondent claimed that the existence of actions to annul marriages does not automatically create a prejudicial question that would merit suspending the criminal proceedings. The prosecution argued that, regardless of whether Landicho's first marriage could be deemed null based on his allegations, the lack of a judicial declaration regarding its nullity made the legal presumption of the first marriage's validity still intact.
Legal Principles and Precedents
The Respondent's stance is supported by the principles articulated in prior cases, particularly Merced v. Dlez and Zapanta v. Mendoza, which outline that the validity of the second marriage must be adjudicated in the civil suit before a criminal prosecution for bigamy can proceed. The precedent asserts that until a marriage is declared null, it remains valid for legal purposes, thus expos
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-22579)
Case Overview
- The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition with a preliminary injunction filed by Rolando Landicho against Judge Lorenzo Relova and the People of the Philippines.
- The central issue is whether the ongoing civil suit for annulment of marriage at the instance of Landicho's second wife constitutes a prejudicial question in the pending criminal case for bigamy against him.
- Respondent Judge Relova ruled that it does not constitute a prejudicial question, a stance upheld by the Supreme Court.
Facts of the Case
- On February 27, 1963, Rolando Landicho was charged with bigamy in the Court of First Instance of Batangas, specifically for contracting a second marriage with Fe Lourdes Pasia while still married to Elvira Makatangay.
- The information alleged that Landicho's first marriage to Makatangay was still legally intact.
- On March 15, 1963, Fe Lourdes Pasia filed a complaint against Landicho, seeking to declare their marriage null and void on grounds of coercion and its bigamous nature.
- Subsequently, on June 15, 1963, Landicho filed a third-party complaint against Elvira Makatangay, asking for a declaration of nullity of his first marriage, claiming it was contracted under duress.
- Landicho sought to suspend the criminal proceedings for bigamy pending the resolution of the