Pimentel v Pimentel

G.R. No. 172060, September 13, 2010, CJ Carpio – Prejudicial Question

CASE TYPE: Petition for review assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals

DOCTRINE: A prejudicial question is defined as:

x x x one that arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved
therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. It is a question based on a fact
distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt
or innocence of the accused, and for it to suspend the criminal action, it must appear not only that
said case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be
based but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or
innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.

FACTS:  October 25, 2004 – Maria Chrysantine Pimentel y Lycap (private respondent) filed
against Joselito R. Pimentel (petitioner) a criminal case for frustrated parricide.

 February 7, 2005 – Petitioner received summons for a civil case filed by private
respondent for “Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Section 36 of the Family Code
on the ground of psychological incapacity. (Case was dated November 4, 2004 and was
filed November 5, 2004)

 February 11, 2005 – Petitioner filed a motion for suspension of the proceedings of the
criminal case on the ground of existence of a prejudicial question.

o Petitioner avers that since his relationship to private respondent is essential for
the crime of parricide, the outcome of the annulment case will have bearing in
the criminal case filed against him.

 RTC and CA both denied petitioner’s motion to suspend proceedings. Hence this petition
for review.

ISSUE: WON the resolution of the action for annulment of marriage is a prejudicial question that
warrants the suspension of the criminal case for frustrated parricide against petitioner. NO

HELD: 1. Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:

Section 7. Elements of Prejudicial Question. - The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the
previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised
in the subsequent criminal action and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not
the criminal action may proceed.

The rule is clear that civil action must be instituted first before the filing of the criminal
action (Criminal case was filed October 4, 2004, civil case was filed November 5, 2004).
As such, the requirement of above rule was not met.

2. Annulment of Marriage is not a Prejudicial Question in Criminal Case for Parricide

  The issue in the annulment of marriage is not similar of intimately related to the
issue in the criminal case for parricide.
o Issue in annulment is WON petitioner is psychologically incapacitated
o Issue in parricide is WON petitioner killed the victim, or in case of
frustrated parricide, WON petitioner performed all acts of execution
which would have killed respondent as a consequence but nevertheless
did not produce it by reason of causes independent of petitioner’s will
 The relationship between the offender and the victim is not determinative of the
guilt or innocence of the accused.
 Petitioner and respondent were married at the time of the commission of the
crime. The subsequent dissolution of their marriage will have no effect on the
alleged crime he committed during the subsistence of their marriage.
 Petitioner’s reliance on Tenebro v Court of Appeals is erroneous because:
o There was no prejudicial question in that case since the crime (bigamy)
committed is intimately related to the civil case
o Although such marriage is void ab initio, it can still produce legal
consequences
o The Court even declared that declaration of nullity of marriage on the
basis of psychological incapacity is of no moment as far as the State’s
penal laws are concerned.

DISPOSITIVE: Petition DENIED. CA’s decision AFFIRMED.

Prepared by: C. Cupay