Case 21

Capilo v. People,
G.R. No. 183805
July 3, 2013

Facts:
On June 28, 2004, petitioner was charged with the crime of bigamy before the RTC of Pasig City.
Petitioner thereafter filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings alleging that: (1) there is a pending civil case
for declaration of nullity of the second marriage before the RTC of Antipolo City filed by Karla Y. Medina-
Capili; (2) in the event that the marriage is declared null and void, it would exculpate him from the
charge of bigamy; and (3) the pendency of the civil case for the declaration of nullity of the second
marriage serves as a prejudicial question in the instant criminal case.

Issue:
WON the contention of the petitioner that the pendency of the civil case for the declaration of
nullity of the second marriage serves as a prejudicial question in the instant criminal case.

Ruling:
No. The contention of the petitioner that the pendency of the civil case for the declaration of
nullity of the second marriage does not serve as a prejudicial question in the instant criminal case.
It is well-settled rule that where a pre-judicial question (Art. 36) arises, which must be decided
before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed, it should first be established that the
outcome of the civil case has bearing upon the determination of petitioner’s innocence or guilt in the
criminal case.
The facts of the case show that petitioner’s marriage to private complainant had no bearing
upon the determination of petitioner’s innocence or guilt in the criminal case for bigamy, because all
that is required for the charge of bigamy to prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at the time
the second marriage is contracted.
Hence, the petitioner’s contention that the pendency of the civil case for the declaration of
nullity of the second marriage does not serve as a prejudicial question in the instant criminal case.