Art. 36.

Pre-judicial questions which must be decided before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed,
shall be governed by rules of court which the Supreme Court shall promulgate and which shall not be in conflict with the
provisions of this Code.

MEYNARDO L. BELTRAN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and HON. JUDGE FLORENTINO TUAZON, JR. being
the Judge of the RTC, Branch 139, Makati City, respondents

G.R. No. 137567. June 20, 2000

FACTS:

The petitioner filed a petition for nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. In her Answer to the said
petition, petitioner’s wife Charmaine Felix alleged that it was petitioner who abandoned the conjugal home and lived
with a certain woman named Milagros Salting. Charmaine subsequently filed a criminal complaint for concubinage. The
petitioner, in order to forestall the issuance of a warrant for his arrest, filed a Motion to Defer Proceedings Including the
Issuance of the Warrant of Arrest in the criminal case. Petitioner argued that the pendency of the civil case for
declaration of nullity of his marriage posed a prejudicial question to the determination of the criminal case. Judge Alden
Vasquez Cervantes denied the foregoing motion. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the pendency of the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity is a
prejudicial question that should merit the suspension of the criminal case for concubinage.

RULING:

The Supreme Court finds the contention of the petitioner without merit. The pendency of the case for declaration of
nullity of petitioner’s marriage is not a prejudicial question to the concubinage case. For a civil case to be considered
prejudicial to a criminal action as to cause the suspension of the latter pending the final determination of the civil case, it
must appear not only that the said civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution would be
based, but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the aforesaid civil action, the guilt or innocence of
the accused would necessarily be determined.

Bobis v. Bobis

G.R. No. 138509, 31 July 2000

FACTS:

On October 21, 1985, respondent contracted a first marriage with one Maria Dulce B. Javier. Without the said marriage
been annulled, nullified or terminated, the same respondent contracted a second marriage with petitioner Imelda
Marbella-Bobis on January 25, 1996 and allegedly a third marriage with a certain Julia Sally Hernandez. Based on
petitioner’s complaint- affidavit, information for bigamy was filed against respondent. Sometime thereafter, respondent
initiated a civil action for the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of his first marriage on the ground that it was
celebrated without a marriage license.

ISSUE:

Whether the subsequent filing of a civil action for declaration of nullity of a previous marriage constitutes a prejudicial
question to a criminal case for bigamy

RULING:

No. The subsequent filing of a civil action for declaration of nullity of a previous marriage does not constitute a
prejudicial question to a criminal case for bigamy.

1
A prejudicial question is one which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved
therein. 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. Its two essential elements are: (a) the civil action involves an issue
similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines
whether or not the criminal action may proceed.

In Article 40 of the Family Code, respondent, without first having obtained the judicial declaration of nullity of the first
marriage, cannot be said to have validly entered into the second marriage. In the current jurisprudence, a marriage
though void still needs a judicial declaration of such fact before any party can marry again; otherwise the second
marriage will also be void. The reason is that, without a judicial declaration of its nullity, the first marriage is presumed
to be subsisting. In the case at bar, respondent was for all legal intents and purposes regarded as a married man at the
time he contracted his second marriage with petitioner. Any decision in the civil action for nullity would not erase the
fact that respondent entered into a second marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage. Thus, a decision in the
civil case is not essential to the determination of the criminal charge. It is, therefore, not a prejudicial question.

Morigo v. People, G.R. No. 145226, February 06, 2004

FACTS: Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates in Bohol for four years. The lost contacts when the school year
ended. When Lucio received a card from Lucia Barrete from Singapore, constant communication took place between
them. They later became sweethearts. In 1986, Lucia returned to the Philippines but left again for Canada to work there.
While in Canada, they maintained constant communication. In 1990, Lucia came back to the Philippines and proposed to
petition appellant to join her in Canada. Both agreed to get married, thus they were married on August 30, 1990 in
Bohol. Lucia reported back to her work in Canada leaving appellant Lucio behind. On August 19, 1991, Lucia filed with
the Ontario Court a petition for divorce against appellant which was granted on January 17, 1992 and to take effect on
February 17, 1992. On October 4, 1992, appellant Lucio Morigo married Maria Jececha Lumbago in Bohol. On September
21, 1993, accused filed a complaint for judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage on the ground that no marriage
ceremony actually took place.

ISSUE: Whether Morigo must have filed declaration for the nullity of his marriage with Barrete before his second
marriage in order to be free from the bigamy case.

HELD: Morigo’s marriage with Barrete is void ab initio considering that there was no actual marriage ceremony
performed between them by a solemnizing officer instead they just merely signed a marriage contract. The petitioner
does not need to file declaration of the nullity of his marriage when he contracted his second marriage with Lumbago.
Hence, he did not commit bigamy and is acquitted in the case filed.

2
3