Art. 40. Donato vs.

Luna <TAN>

FACTS:

The City of Fiscal of Manila filed an information for bigamy against petitioner
Leonilo Donato. The information was filed based on the complaint of private respondent
Paz Abayan. Before the petitioner’s arraignment, private respondent filed a civil action
for declaration of nullity of marriage with petitioner on the ground that respondent
consented to entering into the marriage, which was Donato’s second one, since she had
no previous knowledge that petitioner was already married to a certain Rosalinda
Maluping. Petitioner filed a motion to suspend the proceedings on the civil case for it
raises a prejudicial question which must be first decided before the criminal case can
proceed. Hon. Artemon Luna dismissed the motion to suspend the proceedings in
criminal case for bigamy for it can be proceed as schedule.

ISSUE:

Whether or not said case imposes a prejudicial question?

RULING:

The requisites of a prejudicial question do not obtain in the case at bar. Petitioner
has not even sufficiently shown that his consent to the second marriage has been
obtained by the use of force. In the present case, there is yet no judgment on the civil
case. Pursuant to the case of Landicho vs. Relova, petitioner cant apply the doctrine
since a case for annulment of marriage can be considered as a prejudicial question to
the bigamy case against the accused if it proved that the petitioner’s consent to such
marriage was obtained by means of force in order to establish his act in the subsequent
marriage was an involuntary one and as such the same cannot be basis for conviction.
The records reveal that prior to petitioner’s second marriage, he had been living with
private respondent Abayan as husband and wife for more than 5 years without the
benefit of marriage. Thus, petitioner’s contentions that his consent was obtained by
force is belied the fact that both petitioner and respondent executed an affidavit which
stated that they had lived together without the benefit of marriage for 5 years. Petitioner
also continued to live with respondent when the latter left their abode upon learning that
Donato was already previously married.

Accordingly, there being no prejudicial question shown to exist, the order of the
denial issued by the respondent judge should be sustained.