CA: On RTCs decisions upheld denial of motion to inhibit and denial of
COURT OF APPEALS, and LILIANA CHOA, respondents. demurrer; On PRC Boards decisions upheld denial of motion to suspend proceedings November 29, 2000 | Kapunan, J. ISSUE: WON the criminal and administrative case should be suspended in DOCTRINE: A prejudicial question has been defined as one based on a fact view of the pendency of the civil case for declaration of nullity of marriage 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 RULING: NO. criminal action, it must appear not only that said case involves facts intimately Using the doctrine cited, the Court ruled that the pendency of the civil case 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 did not pose a prejudicial question which would necessitate that the innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. The rationale criminal case for bigamy or the administrative case be suspended until behind this principle of suspending a criminal case in view of a prejudicial question said civil case is terminated. is to avoid two conflicting decisions. o The outcome of the civil case for annulment had no bearing upon the determination of petitioners innocence or guilt in the criminal SUMMARY: Arthur Te and Liliana Choa were married. They did not live case for bigamy, because all that is required for the charge of bigamy together after the marriage but would meet each other regularly. When Choa to prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at the time the second gave birth, Te stopped visiting her. Te then married Julieta Santella. Choa marriage is contracted. (Article 40 of FC) charged him with bigamy (criminal case), and filed a case with the PRC for o The concept of prejudicial question involves a civil and a criminal case. the revocation of the engineering licenses of Te and Santella There is no prejudicial question where one case is administrative (administrative case). Te filed an action for annulment of marriage (civil and the other is civil. case). Te argued that the criminal and administrative cases should be o Section 32 of the Rules of the PRC Board expressly provides that the suspended because of the pendency of the civil case. The Court held that the administrative proceedings before it shall not be suspended pendency of the civil case did not pose a prejudicial question which notwithstanding the existence of a criminal and/or civil case against would warrant the suspension of the criminal and administrative case the respondent involving the same facts as the administrative case. basing it on the doctrine cited above. o Allegations in the administrative case are not confined to the issue of the alleged bigamous marriage. Petitioner is also charged with FACTS: immoral conduct for continued failure to perform his obligations as Arthur Te and Liliana Choa were married. Te subsequently married Julieta husband and as a father, and for cohabiting with Santella without the Santella. Choa charged him with bigamy (criminal case), and filed a case benefit of marriage. with the PRC for the revocation of the engineering licenses of Te and OTHER CRIM PRO TOPIC: Demurrer of evidence; The grant or denial Santella (administrative case) on the ground that they committed acts of of a demurrer to evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, immorality by living together and subsequently marrying each other and its ruling on the matter shall not be disturbed in the absence of a grave despite knowledge that petitioner was already married. abuse of such discretion. In view of the trial courts finding that a prima Te filed an action for annulment of marriage (civil case) on the ground facie case against petitioner exists, his proper recourse is to adduce that he was forced to marry Choa. He alleged that she concealed her evidence in his defense. The order of the RTC denying the demurrer was pregnancy by another man and that she was psychologically not an adjudication on the merits but merely an evaluation of the incapacitated. sufficiency of the prosecutions evidence to determine whether or not a full-blown trial would be necessary to resolve the case. After the prosecution rested its case for bigamy, petitioner filed a demurrer to evidence with leave of court and motion to inhibit the OTHER CRIM PRO TOPIC: Disqualification of judges; The judges acts RTC judge for showing antagonism and animosity towards Te. did not conclusively show that the latter was biased and had prejudged the case. The rudimentary rule is that the mere suspicion that a judge is partial Te also filed before the Board of Civil Engineering of the PRC, a motion is not enough. There should be clear and convincing evidence to prove to suspend the proceedings in view of the pendency of the civil case for the charge of bias and partiality. The grounds raised by petitioner in his annulment of his marriage to Choa and criminal case for bigamy. motion to inhibit are not among those mentioned in Section 1, Rule 137 RTC: denied demurrer to evidence, denied petitioners motion to inhibit of the ROC (alleging grave abuse of discretion by the judge) for lack of legal basis WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. PRC Board: denied the motion to suspend proceedings