G.R. No.

137567 June 20, 2000

MEYNARDO L. BELTRAN, petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and HON. JUDGE FLORENTINO TUAZON, JR., being the Judge of
the RTC, Brach 139, Makati City, respondents.

Facts: June 16, 1973 the petitioner Meynardo Beltran and his wife Chairman Felix married in Immaculate
Concepcion Parish Church at Quezon City. Having children and marriage of 24 years, the petitioner filed a
petition for the nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of family Code in
RTC against his wife. But as stated to the answer of Chairmain Felix that the petitioner is the one who
abandoned their home and live together with another woman named Milagros Salting, wherein she filed a
criminal complaint for concubinage under Art. 334 of RPC against the petitioner in the City of Prosecution
Office of Makiti whereby they found a probable cause to the petition and later filed in MTC. But the petitioner
filed a motion to defer proceedings together to the issuance of warrant of arrest, that he contest that the
declaration of nullity of marriage is a prejudicial question as criminal case. It was denied by the judge and the
motion of reconsideration also denied. He went to RTC for certiorari, questioning the order issued by the judge
and he want to pray for the writ of preliminary injunction, but RTC denied. Through that he filed a petition for
review, claimed that his petition based in psychological incapacity is a prejudicial question that may result to
suspension of the criminal case against him. And he also contest that there is a would be a conflict possibility
result for the petitiones filed. Since in civil case the court may valid the marriage by dismissing the petitioner
complaint but through criminal case the court may exempt the petitioner since the evidence found that the
marriage is invalid on the ground of psycholigical incapacity.

Issue: Whether or not the declaration of nullity of marriage petition poses the prejudicial question to
prosecution for the concubinage of the wife.

Ruling: No,The petitioner contention is considered unsupported. Provided that the principle of the prejudicial
question is to avoid any conflict decision as to the result, wherein it has two elements that is need to be
considered: (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.
Considering it is not a prejudicial question in the declaration of nullity of marriage to the concubinage. It is
considered as prejudicial to a criminal action that the cause of the suspension of the pending final determination
in civil case, that it must show not only to civil case that involved ultimate fact by which the prosecution based
in deciding, but also for the issues that raised in civil action whether the accused is guilty or not that need to be
determined. Through that, it this case the parties to the marriage should not be permitted to the judge for
themselves about its nullity, and the judgement must submitted to the competent court and only of the marriage
nullity is declared void. Therefore, the petitioner who cohabits with a woman not his wife before the judicial
declaration of nullity of the marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for concubinage. That the lower
court make an areed to the orders of the judgement of MTC to the pendency of the civil action for the
declaration of nullity of marriage that does not pose under prejudicial question under concubinage criminal
case.

Fallo: WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the instant petition is DISMISSED.