G.R. No. 172060 ; September 13, 2010
JOSELITO R. PIMENTEL, Petitioner, vs. MARIA CHRYSANTINE L. PIMENTEL and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

Maria Chrysantine Pimentel filed a criminal case for frustrated parricide against her husband, Joselito Pimentel, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. Subsequently, she filed a civil action for the declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity before the RTC of Antipolo City. Upon receiving the summons for the civil case, Joselito filed an urgent motion to suspend the criminal proceedings, arguing that the civil case presented a prejudicial question. He contended that since the marital relationship is a key element in parricide, the outcome of the nullity case would determine whether the crime of parricide could even be prosecuted against him.
The RTC Quezon City denied the motion to suspend, holding that the pendency of the civil case did not constitute a prejudicial question. It ruled that the issues in the criminal case were the injuries sustained and whether the trial could proceed irrespective of the marriage’s validity. Joselito’s motion for reconsideration was also denied. He then elevated the case via certiorari to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed his petition. The appellate court ruled that for frustrated parricide, the only requirement is that the marriage subsisted at the time of the alleged crime, and a subsequent declaration of nullity would be immaterial.

ISSUE

Whether the resolution of the civil action for annulment of marriage constitutes a prejudicial question that warrants the suspension of the criminal case for frustrated parricide.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that no prejudicial question exists to suspend the criminal proceedings. First, under Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, a prejudicial question requires that the civil action involving an intimately related issue must be instituted before the criminal action. In this case, the Information for frustrated parricide was filed and raffled in October 2004, while the civil case for nullity was filed only in November 2004. The chronological order was not satisfied.
Second, on substantive grounds, the resolution of the nullity case is not determinative of the accused’s guilt or innocence in the parricide case. A prejudicial question exists only if the issue in the civil case is so logically antecedent that its resolution dictates whether the criminal action may proceed. For the crime of parricide, the essential element is the existence of a valid marriage at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity on psychological incapacity grounds does not retroactively erase the legal existence of the marital bond for purposes of criminal liability incurred prior to such declaration. The Court cited Tenebro v. Court of Appeals, which held that a void ab initio marriage may still produce legal consequences and that a declaration of nullity is of no moment to penal laws regarding acts committed before the declaration. Therefore, the trial in the criminal case may proceed independently.