You are on page 1of 1

ARTHUR TE V CA, LILIANA CHOA FACTS: Petition for review on certiorari which seeks to reverse the Decision of the

Court of Appeals denying Te's motion for reconsideration. Arthur Te and Liliana Choa were married in Sept 1988. They do not live together but meet regularly until after Liliana gave birth that Arthur stopped visiting her. On May 20, 1990, while their marriage was still subsisting, Arthur contracted a second marriage with Julieta Santella. On August 1990, Liliana filed an information charging Arthur with bigamy. Meanwhile, in July 1990, Arthur Te filed an action for annulment on the ground that he was forced to marry her, that she concealed her pregnancy by another man at the time of their marriage and psychologically incapacity. On November 8, 1990, Liliana also filed with the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) an administrative case against petitioner and Santella for the revocation of their respective engineering licenses on the ground that they committed acts of immorality and an act of falsification against Arthur when he stated nd in his 2 marriage contract that he was still single. After the prosecution or criminal case, petitoner filed demurrer to evidence and motion to inhibit the judge were filed but were eventually denied by the court. Thus: <A.> petitioner filed a petition for certiorari filed with the CA alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court judge, Judge Cezar C. Peralejo, for (1) exhibiting antagonism and animosity towards his counsel; (2) violating the due process by denying his motion for reconsideration and demurrer to evidence (3) x x x (4) ruling that in a criminal case only prima facie evidence is sufficient for conviction of an accused. <B.>Petitioner filed with the Board of Civil Engineering of the PRC a motion to suspend the proceedings therein in view of the pendency st of the case for annulment of his 1 marriage and case for bigamy, but it was subsequently denied. Thus, he filed with the CA another petition for certiorari against Board for grave abuse of discretion: (1) NOT holding that the annulment case is prejudicial to the outcome of the administrative case; (2) X X X (3) making an overly-sweeping interpretation that Section 32 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Regulation and Practice of Professionals does not allow the suspension of the administrative proceeding before the PRC Board despite the pendency of criminal and/or administrative proceedings against the same respondent involving the same set of facts. CA rendered ff decision: 1. upheld the RTCs denial of the motion to inhibit due to petitioners failure to show any concrete evidence that the trial court judge exhibited partiality and had prejudged the case. 2. denial of motion to suspend the proceedings on the ground of prejudicial question was in accord with law 3. affirmed the RTCs denial of the demurrer to evidence filed by petitioner for his failure to set forth persuasive grounds to support the same

4. no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Board 5. no prejudicial question existed since the action sought to be suspended is administrative in nature, and the other action involved is a civil case ISSUES: 1. WON there is a prejudicial question between the civil case of annulment and criminal case of bigamy. 2. WON there is a prejudicial question between the civil case of annulment and administrative case. 3. WON there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of CA and Board. HELD: No, No, No * Prejudicial Question - one 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. 1. Civil case for annulment did NOT pose a prejudicial question to the criminal case of bigamy. The outcome of the civil case for annulment of petitioners marriage to private respondent had no bearing upon the determination of petitioners innocence or guilt in the criminal case for bigamy, st because all that is required for bigamy to prosper is that the 1 nd marriage be subsisting at the time the 2 marriage is contracted. Even a declaration that their marriage was void ab initio would NOT necessarily absolve him from criminal liability. Art. 40 of Family Code is already in effect at the time of their marriage (Sept 1988) stating that a marriage, even one which is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding, 2. Civil case for annulment does NOT pose a prejudicial question to suspend an administrative proceeding. There is no prejudicial question where one case is administrative and the other is civil. The concept of prejudicial question involves a civil and a criminal case. Furthermore, Section 32 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Regulation and Practice of Professionals of the PRC Board expressly provides that the administrative proceedings before it shall not be suspended notwithstanding the existence of a criminal and/or civil case against the respondent involving the same facts as the administrative case. The Board shall proceed independently with the investigation of the case and shall render therein its decision without awaiting for the final decision of the courts or quasi-judicial body. 3. Court of Appeals did not find any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, which based its denial of the demurrer on two grounds: first, the prosecution established a prima facie case for bigamy against the petitioner; and second, petitioners allegations in the demurrer were insufficient to justify the grant of the same. The denial for the motion to inhibit was also correct. Mere suspicion that a judge is partial is not enough. There should be clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge of bias and partiality.