Case Summary (G.R. No. 172060)
Issue
Whether the pending annulment action constitutes a prejudicial question mandating suspension of the criminal case for frustrated parricide.
Applicable Law
- 1987 Constitution, Article VIII, Section 5(5): Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction over petitions for review on certiorari.
- Section 7, Rule 111, 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure: Elements of a prejudicial question—(a) a previously instituted civil action raising an issue similar or intimately related to the criminal action; (b) resolution of that issue determining whether the criminal case may proceed.
- Article 36, Family Code: Psychological incapacity as ground for annulment of marriage.
- Articles 246–249, Revised Penal Code: Definitions and elements of parricide, murder, and homicide.
- Article 6, Revised Penal Code: Stages of execution—attempted, frustrated, consummated.
- Jurisprudence on prejudicial questions and effects of annulment on criminal liability (e.g., Jose v. Suarez; Go v. Sandiganbayan; People v. Dalag; Tenebro v. Court of Appeals).
Analysis
- Chronological Requirement
The frustrated parricide information was filed and docketed before the annulment petition. Under Section 7, Rule 111, the civil action must precede the criminal action to qualify as prejudicial. Here, the annulment case was instituted after the criminal case, failing the first element. - Distinct Legal Issues
The annulment proceeding addresses petitioner’s psychological capacity to fulfill marital obligations, whereas the criminal case examines whether petitioner performed overt acts with intent to kill his spouse. Though relationship between offender and victim is an essential element of parricide, that relationship existed at the time of the alleged crime. A later judicial declaration of nullity does not retroactively negate criminal liability for acts committe
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 172060)
Facts
- On 30 August 2004, an Information for frustrated parricide was filed against Joselito R. Pimentel (petitioner) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 223, docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-04-130415; the Information was received on 25 October 2004.
- On 5 November 2004, Maria Chrysantine L. Pimentel (respondent) filed Civil Case No. 04-7392 before the RTC of Antipolo City, Branch 72, for declaration of nullity of marriage under Section 36 of the Family Code on the ground of psychological incapacity; petitioner was served summons on 7 February 2005.
- Petitioner moved to suspend the criminal proceedings before RTC Quezon City on 11 February 2005, invoking the doctrine of prejudicial question based on the pendency of the annulment case.
Procedural History
- RTC Quezon City, Branch 223, denied petitioner’s motion to suspend proceedings by Order dated 13 May 2005, holding that the annulment case did not present a prejudicial question.
- The RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by Order dated 22 August 2005.
- Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with application for writ of preliminary injunction before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 91867, assailing the RTC’s 13 May and 22 August