Solomon and Faith got married in 2005. In 2010, Solomon contracted a second marriage with Hope. When Faith found out about the second marriage of Solomon and Hope, she filed a criminal case for bigamy before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila sometime in 2011. Meanwhile, Solomon filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his first marriage with Faith in 2012, while the case for bigamy before the RTC of Manila is ongoing. Subsequently, Solomon filed a motion to suspend the proceedings in the bigamy case on the ground of prejudicial question. He asserts that the proceedings in the criminal case should be suspended because if his first marriage with Faith will be declared null and void, it will have the effect of exculpating him from the crime of bigamy. Decide. (4%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
Solomon's motion to suspend the proceedings should be denied. Under Section 7, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, a prejudicial question requires that the civil action be previously instituted before the criminal case. Moreover, under jurisprudence, the pendency of a
Unlock the full Remedial Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Does a civil action for declaration of nullity filed after a bigamy case suspend the criminal proceedings?
A prejudicial question requires that the civil action be previously instituted before the criminal action.
Under Article 40 of the Family Code, when must a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage be obtained?
Article 40 mandates obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity prior to contracting a second marriage.
What is the legal effect of a subsequent declaration of nullity of a first marriage on a pending bigamy charge?
A subsequent declaration of nullity does not erase the consummated crime of bigamy.
Which of the following is an essential element of a prejudicial question under Rule 111 of the Rules of Court?
Choices available with full access.
Why is a motion to suspend a bigamy trial denied when the civil action for nullity was filed later?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Prejudicial Question Elements
Under Section 7, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, a prejudicial question requires that the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action. Crucially, the resolution of the civil issue must determine whether or not the criminal action may proceed. Furthermore, the civil action must have been previously instituted before the criminal case was filed in court. If the criminal case was instituted prior to the civil action, the motion to suspend on the ground of a prejudicial question must be denied.
2. Prior Judicial Declaration
Under Article 40 of the Family Code, a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of a previous marriage is required before a person can contract a subsequent marriage. The pendency of a civil action for declaration of nullity does not pose a prejudicial question to a bigamy prosecution. Because the second marriage was contracted without a prior judicial declaration of nullity, the crime of bigamy is already consummated. A subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage in a civil case will not exculpate the accused from criminal liability.
3. Priority of Action
Under criminal procedure, for a prejudicial question to exist, the civil case must precede the criminal action. Where a criminal prosecution for bigamy is initiated before the accused files a civil petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, the defense of a prejudicial question cannot be successfully invoked. The trial court handling the criminal case retains full jurisdiction to proceed with the trial and judgment. Allowing a belatedly filed civil action to suspend a criminal proceeding would encourage dilatory tactics and undermine the prompt administration of criminal justice.