LENI O. CHOA Vs. HON. BELDIA,Jr.

, and ALFONSO CHOA

(Leni O. Choa vs. Hon. Rolindo O. Beldia, Jr., Judge. RTC, Branch 41, Bacolod
City; and Alfonso Choa.)
FACTS:
In 1991, petitioner Leni Choa initiated a case for concubinage against her
husband, Alfonso Choa, in the MTCC, Bacolod City, docketed as Criminal Case
NO. 49106. In March 1994, when the promulgation of the decision was about
to take place, Alfonso filed with the RTC, Bacolod City, a complaint for
annulment of marriage based on psychological incapacity. Thus, Alfonso filed
with the MTCC a motion in an order dated March 23, 1994. His motion for
reconsideration having been likewise denied, on June 22, 1994, he filed with
the RTC, Bacolod City, a petition for certiorari with injunction against the trial
court. On July 13, 1994, the RTC issued a restraining order, and denied Leni
Choa's motion for intervention.3 [Ibid, pp. 79-80.]
ISSUE:
whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in
suspending the promulgation of judgement in Criminal Case No. 49106 of the
MTCC in the concubinage case due to a prejudicial question.
HELD:
A prejudicial question comes into play generally in a situation where a civil
action and a criminal action are both pending and there exist in the former
an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may
proceed, because howsoever the issue in the civil action resolved would be
determinative juris et de jure of the guilt innocence of the accused in the
criminal case.4 [Carlos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109887, February 10,
1997.]
The prejudicial question is the issue raised in the civil case for declaration of
nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the
Family Code. Under this article, a marriage was psychologically incapacitated
to comply with the marital obligations of marriage.5 [Arturo M. Tolentino,
Civil Code of the Philippines, vol. 1, p. 274.] True enough, the nullity of
marriage between petitioner and private respondent brings about two things:
One, there is no marriage at all; Two, there is no ground to convict Alfonso
Choa of concubinage because one element of the crime is not attendant,
that is, the man must be married at the time of its commission.

The TRO issued by the RTC merely interlocutory; hence, the proper remedy is
appeal in due time from the decision of the case.
WHEREFORE, finding that the regional trial court committed no grave abuse
of discretion, the court resolve to DENY the petition