G.R. No.

L-53642, April 15, 1988

Donato v. Luna
Ponente: GANCAYCO, J.
Topic: Void Marriages; Bigamous and Polygamous Marriages; Prejudicial Question
Nature: Petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction
Doctrine:
A prejudicial question is 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.
In a case for annulment of marriage, it can be considered as a prejudicial
question to the bigamy case against the accused only if it is proved that the Ps
consent to such marriage was obtained by means of duress, violence and
intimidation in order to establish that his act in the subsequent marriage was an
involuntary one.
Facts:
-

On January 23, 1979, Paz Abayan (R) filed a complaint against Leonilo Donato
(P) through the Assistant City Fiscal of Manila Amado Cantor for the crime of

bigamy.
On September 28, 1979, before Ps arraignment, R filed with the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court of Manila a civil action for declaration of nullity
of her marriage with P contracted on September 26, 1978. The civil case was
based on the ground that she had no previous knowledge that P was already
married to a certain Rosalinda R. Maluping on June 30, 1978.

P argued that his 2nd marriage was void since it was solemnized without a
marriage license and that force, violence, intimidation and undue influence were
employed by R to obtain Ps consent to the marriage. Prior to the solemnization
of the 2nd marriage, P & R had lived together and deported themselves as

husband and wife without the benefit of wedlock for a period of at least 5 years.
Prior to the date set for the trial on criminal case, P filed a motion to suspend the
proceedings of said case contending that the civil case seeking the annulment of
his 2nd marriage filed by R raises a prejudicial question which must first be
determined or decided before the criminal case can proceed. However, this
was denied by Judge Luna of CFI-Manila due to the ruling held in Landicho v.
Relova.

Issue:
1. Whether or not the 2nd marriage is void due to absence of requirements under
the NCC.
2. Whether or not Judge Luna can suspend the criminal proceedings due to a
prejudicial question in the civil case.
Ruling:
1. No. P has not even sufficiently shown that his consent to the second marriage
has been obtained by the use of threats, force and intimidation.
2. Yes. The requisites of a prejudicial question are lacking.
P cannot apply the rule on prejudicial questions since a case for annulment of
marriage can be considered as a prejudicial question to the bigamy case against
the accused only if it is proved that the Ps consent to such marriage was
obtained by means of duress, violence and intimidation in order to establish that
his act in the subsequent marriage was an involuntary one and as such the same
cannot be the basis for conviction.
P merely raised this defense to avoid prosecution for the crime of bigamy. It is
shown that they lived together for 5 years before P & Rs marriage and it was
only when the civil case was filed on September 28, 1979, or more than the lapse
of 1 year from the solemnization of the 2 nd marriage that P came up with the story

that his consent to the marriage was secured through the use of force, violence,
intimidation and undue influence.
Dispositive:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for
lack of merit. We make no pronouncement as to costs.