G.R. No. L-5930 February 17, 1954
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Abelo Aragon, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The defendant, Abelo Aragon, was charged with the crime of bigamy in the Court of First Instance of Cebu for contracting a second marriage with Efigenia C. Palomer on September 21, 1947, while his prior marriage to Martina Godinez was still valid and subsisting. While the criminal case was pending trial, Efigenia C. Palomer filed a civil action against Aragon, alleging that he forced her to marry him through force, threats, and intimidation, and praying for the annulment of their marriage. Based on this pending civil action, Aragon filed a motion in the criminal case for the provisional dismissal of the bigamy charge, contending that the civil action for annulment presented a prejudicial question. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that the validity of the second marriage could be determined within the criminal action itself. Aragon appealed this order.

ISSUE

Whether the pendency of the civil action for annulment of the second marriage constitutes a prejudicial question that warrants the suspension or provisional dismissal of the criminal action for bigamy.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order denying the motion to dismiss. The Court held that the civil action for annulment did not constitute a prejudicial question. A prejudicial question requires two elements: (1) its resolution must be determinative of the case before the court, and (2) jurisdiction to resolve it must be lodged in another tribunal. In this case, the civil action filed by Palomer sought annulment based on force and intimidation allegedly employed by Aragon. Even if the second marriage were annulled on that ground, its nullity is not a defense to the criminal charge of bigamy for Aragon. The alleged force and intimidation, if true, could potentially be a defense for Palomer if she were charged, as it would negate her voluntary participation. However, Aragon, as the alleged perpetrator of the force, cannot use his own malfeasance as a defense to defeat the criminal action. Therefore, a decision in the civil action is not essential to the determination of the criminal charge and is immaterial to it. Additionally, the Supreme Court noted that the order appealed from was an interlocutory order (denying a motion to dismiss) and not a final judgment, making it non-appealable.