GR 137567; (June, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 137567 ; June 20, 2000
Meynardo L. Beltran, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, and Hon. Judge Florentino Tuazon, Jr., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Meynardo Beltran filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage to Charmaine Felix on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. This civil case was pending before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Subsequently, his wife filed a criminal complaint for concubinage against him and his alleged paramour before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati. Beltran filed a motion to defer the criminal proceedings, arguing that the pending nullity case constituted a prejudicial question that should first be resolved.
The MeTC denied his motion and subsequent motion for reconsideration. Beltran then filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, seeking to enjoin the criminal trial. The RTC denied the petition, prompting Beltran to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the pendency of a civil action for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity constitutes a prejudicial question that warrants the suspension of a criminal case for concubinage.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative and dismissed the petition. A prejudicial question exists when the resolution of an issue in a civil action is logically antecedent to a issue in a criminal action and the resolution of such issue determines whether the criminal action may proceed. The Court held that the pending nullity case does not pose a prejudicial question to the concubinage case.
The legal logic is clear: for purposes of prosecuting the crime of concubinage, the validity of the marriage is presumed until otherwise declared void by a competent court in a final judgment. The accused cannot, by his own assertion in a separate civil action, preempt this presumption. Parties to a marriage cannot be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity. Following the doctrine in Landicho vs. Relova, which was cited with approval, a person who cohabits with another before a judicial declaration of nullity of his marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for concubinage. A subsequent declaration of nullity is not a defense to the crime, which is committed at the time of the cohabitation during the subsistence of a presumptively valid marriage. Therefore, the trial in the criminal case may proceed independently of the civil case for nullity.