DR. FILOTEO A. ALANO v. ZENAIDA MAGUD-LOGMAO, GR No.

175540, 2014-04-14

Facts: Arnelito Logmao, 18 years old was brought to East Avenue Medical Center by two vendors after
they allegedly saw him fall from the overpass by the farmer’s market in Cubao, Quezon City on March 1,
1988 . The patient’s data sheet identified him as Angelito Lugmoso from Mandaluyong. However, Dr.
Paterno Cabrera reported that it was Angelito Logmao. He was reportedly drowsy and had alcoholic
breath but had no fraction on his skull as his tests had shown. However, he had seizures and
deteriorated to the point that intensive care was necessary. However as there was no vacancy in the ICU
and the ventilators were all in use so he was transferred to NKI. He was also recorded as Angelito
Lugmoso in NKI. As Lugmoso had no family, the transplant coordinator was asked to locate his family by
enlisting to the police and coordinating with the media. A doctor saw that he had symptoms of brain
death and therefore had him run through certain tests as he could be eligible to donate organs. On May
3, 1988, he was pronounced brain dead and they inquired about his family to the transplant
coordinator, however they have found no positive results. As such, they proceeded to extract his organs
for transplant. Hi brother Arlen Lugmao reported on March 3,1988 that Arnelito Lugmao has not
returned home after seeing a movie in Cubao. On April 29, 1988 the plaintiff filed with the Court a quo a
complaint against the doctors in NKI who handled Arnelito namely, Dr. Emmanuel Lenon, Taurean
Protectors Agency, represented by its Proprietor, Celso Santiago, National Kidney Institute, represented
by its Director, Dr. Filoteo A. Alano, Jennifer Misa, Dr. Maximo Reyes, Dr. Enrique T. Ona, Dr. Manuel
Chua-Chiaco, Jr., Dr. Rose Marie O. Rosete-Liquete, Dr. Aurea Z. Ambrosio, Dr. Ludivino de Guzman, Dr.
Mary Litonjua, Dr. Jaime Velasquez, Dr. Ricardo Fernando, Dr. Myrna Mendoza, Lee Tan Koc, Alexis
Ambustan, Dr. Antonio R. Paraiso, La Funeraria Oro, Inc., represented by its President, German E.
Ortega, Roberto Ortega alias Bobby Ortega, Dr. Mariano B. Cueva, Jr., John Doe, Peter Doe, and Alex Doe
in connection with the death of her son Arnelito. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants conspired to
remove the deceased’s organs while he was still alive.

Issue: Whether or not the court of appeals erred in refusing to declare that doctor Alano acted in good
faith

Held: No the patient in the first place was declared brain dead, thus the injuries he attained were not
from the defendant. The trial and appellate courts found that it was the EAMC, who had the opportunity
to ascertain the name of the deceased, who recorded the wrong information regarding the deceased's
identity to NKI. The NKI could not have obtained the information about his name from the patient,
because as found by the lower courts, the deceased was already unconscious by the time he was
brought to the NKI. The emotional pain suffered by the respondent cannot be attributed to the
petitioner.

Beltran vs. People

Facts: Maynardo and Charmaine married in 1973. After 24 years of marriage, Maynardo filed for a
petition for nullity of marriage on the grounds of psychological incapacity. However according to
Charmaine her husband left home and lived with his paramour, as such she filed a concubinage case
against him before the office of the city prosecutor in Makati. Maynardo filed for a motion to deter
before the MeTC staying that the pendency of the petition for nullity posses a prejudicial question to the
criminal case. However, the lower court denied his motion so was the motion for reconsideration filed
by Meynardo, so he filed a Petition for Certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction before the Regional Trial Court to suspend the case’s trial. The RTC denied his petition and the
motion for reconsideration.

Issue: Whether or not the pendency of the petition for nullity of marriage poses pendency to the
criminal case filed by the wife

Held: No. A civil case can 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. A couple cannot decide whether or not their marriage is already void
or not. Only when it is submitted before the court for judgement and judgement have been held shall it
be void if judged as such. Thus any legally married man living with his paramour has the danger of being
charged with concubinage.

Bobis vs Bobis Case Digest

Facts: On October 21, 1985, respondent Isagani contracted a marriage with Maria Dulce. With having
the said marriage annulled, he contracted another marriage with Imelda on January 25,1996, and a third
marriage with a certain Julia. An information for bigamu was filed against Isagani. He filed a petition for
nullity of his first marriage on the grounds that it allegedly was celebrated without any marriage license.
He filed a motion for the suspension of the proceedings in the criminal case of bigamy stating that the
pending case for nullity of the first marriage as a prejudicial question to the criminal case. The trial judge
granted his petition.

Issue: Whether or not the subsequent filing of the petition for nullity of marriage pose prejudicial
question to the case for bigamy

Held: Yes. Accordingly, a prejudicial question is a question which is based on a fact distinct and separate
from the crime but so intimately connected with it that its resolution is determinative of the guilt or
innocence of the accused. Under article 36, of the NCC, “ 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.”
Under article 40 of the family code, a prior judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is
required before a party may remarry.

EDDIE B. SABANDAL v. FELIPE S. TONGCO, GR No. 124498, 2001-10-05

Facts: Eddie Sabandal entered into a MOA with Philippines today inc.( Now Philippine star) to distribute
news papers on areas of Bacolod City and Negros. Eddie issued checks in for partial payment on
December 18,1990 to April 15, 1991. However the drawee bank dishonored the checks for insufficient
account balance and account closed. Hence, respondent filed a case against Eddie for violation of batas
pambansa 22. October 11, 1995, Eddie filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court, Negros
Occidental at Himamaylan, against Philippines Today, Inc. for recovery of overpayment and damages. He
also filed a motion to suspend trial in the criminal cases against him based on a prejudicial before the
Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 42. The petition was denied. He also filed for a motion for
reconsideration but was also denied.

Issue: Whether or not a prejudicial question exists while there is a pending BP22 case and a complain for
overpayment

Held: No. Under the law, for a civil case to be considered prejudicial question, it must appear not only
that the civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution would be based, but also
that in the resolution of the issues raised in said civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would
necessarily be determined. In this case, the issue from the case of BP22 is whether he had knowingly
and deliberately issued bouncing checks. Whether the Philippines Now Inc. had practiced over payment
or not died not make him not liable for the bouncing checks issued.

Te v. Choa, G.R. No. 126446, Nov. 29, 2000 (346 SCRA 327

Facts: in 1988, Arthur Te married Lillian Choa in a civil ceremony. They did not live together but see each
other regularly in 1989. Lilian gave birth to their child and thereafter, Arthur no longer visited her. In
1990 he contacted another marriage without filing for annulment of his first marriage. Liliana filed a
case of bigamy against Arthur as well as revocation of his and his second wife’s engineering licence.
Arthur filed a petition for nullity of marriage. RTC still rendered judgement about the bigamy case even
though there is an annulment case pending.

Issue: Whether or not the pendency of the annulment case is a prejudicial question

Held: No. A marriage that is not void or voidable in still valid until declared otherwise in a proceeding.
Furthermore article 40 of the Family Code states that “ absolute nullity of a previous marriage may not
be invoked for purposes of remarriage unless there is a final judgment declaring such previous
marriage.”
Pimentel vs, Pimentel.

Facts: On October 25, 2014 Maria Pimentel y Lacap filed an action for frustrated parricide against
Joselito Pimentel. Consequently, Maria also filed a petition for nullity of marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity. On February 25, 2004, Joselito filed an urgent motion to suspend proceedings
for the criminal case on the grounds of an existence of prejudicial question. He asserted that since the
relationship between Joselito and the victim is the key element of the criminal case, he thought the
outcome of the civil case had bearing on the criminal case. The RTC denied such as the civil case had no
bearing to the criminal case. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with application for a writ of
preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order before the Court of Appeals.

Issue: Whether or not there is an existing prejudicial question in the case

Held: No. Under the law, for a civil case to be considered prejudicial question, it must appear not only
that the civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution would be based, but also
that in the resolution of the issues raised in said civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would
necessarily be determined. However in this case, the actions constituting to the crime parricide had
already been committed. And the result of the nullity of marriage petition does not hold any bearing to
the criminal case as whether the marriage of Maria and Joselito is void or not, he still attempted to
commit parricide which has nothing to do with the civil case. Therefore the CA denied the petition.