7/20/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 630

SO ORDERED.

Bersamin, Del Castillo,** Villarama, Jr. and Sereno, JJ.,

concur.

Judgment reversed and set aside, appellant Julius

Gadiana y Repollo acquitted and ordered released.

Note.—Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust

team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is
justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items, are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team.
(Bondad, Jr. vs. People, 573 SCRA 497 [2008])
——o0o——

G.R. No. 172060. September 13, 2010.*

JOSELITO R. PIMENTEL, petitioner, vs. MARIA

CHRYSANTINE L. PIMENTEL and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Criminal Procedure; Actions; Section 7, Rule 117 of the 2000

Rules on Criminal Procedure is clear that the civil action must be
instituted first before the filing of the criminal action.—The rule is
clear that the civil action must be instituted first before the filing
of the criminal action. In this case, the Information for Frustrated
Parricide was dated 30 August 2004. It was raffled to RTC
Quezon City on 25 October 2004 as per the stamped date of
receipt on the Information. The RTC Quezon City set Criminal
Case No. Q-04-130415 for pre-trial and trial on 14 February 2005.
Petitioner was served summons in Civil Case No. 04-7392 on 7
February 2005.

_______________

** Additional member per Special Order No. 879 dated August 13, 2010.

* SECOND DIVISION.

437

VOL. 630, SEPTEMBER 13, 2010

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c0c74a7e2d6bf8142003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 437 1/9
7/20/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 630
Pimentel vs. Peimentel

Respondent’s petition in Civil Case No. 04-7392 was dated 4

November 2004 and was filed on 5 November 2004. Clearly, the
civil case for annulment was filed after the filing of the criminal
case for frustrated parricide. As such, the requirement of Section
7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure was not met
since the civil action was filed subsequent to the filing of the
criminal action.
Parricide; Prejudicial Questions; Annulment of Marriage;
Annulment of marriage is not a prejudicial question in criminal
case for parricide.—Annulment of marriage is not a prejudicial
question in criminal case for parricide. Further, the resolution of
the civil action is not a prejudicial question that would warrant
the suspension of the criminal action. There is a prejudicial
question when a civil action and a criminal action are both
pending, and there exists in the civil action an issue which must
be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed
because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved
would be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in
the criminal case.
Same; Same; Same; The issue in the annulment of marriage is
not similar or intimately related to the issue in the criminal case
for parricide. Further, the relationship between the offender and
the victim is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the
accused.—The relationship between the offender and the victim is
a key element in the crime of parricide, which punishes any
person “who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether
legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants or
descendants, or his spouse.” The relationship between the
offender and the victim distinguishes the crime of parricide from
murder or homicide. However, the issue in the annulment of
marriage is not similar or intimately related to the issue in the
criminal case for parricide. Further, the relationship between the
offender and the victim is not determinative of the guilt or
innocence of the accused.
Same; Same; Same; Even if the marriage between petitioner
and respondent is annulled, petitioner could still be held
criminally liable since at the time of the commission of the alleged
crime, he was still married to respondent.—The issue in the civil
case for annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the Family
Code is whether petitioner is psychologically incapacitate d to
comply with the essential marital obligations. The issue in
parricide is whether the accused killed the victim. In this case,
since petitioner was charged with

438

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c0c74a7e2d6bf8142003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/9
7/20/2019 438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
SUPREME ANNOTATED
COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 630

Pimentel vs. Peimentel

frustrated parricide, the issue is whether he performed all the

acts of execution which would have killed respondent as a
consequence but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason
of causes independent of petitioner’s will. At the time of the
commission of the alleged crime, petitioner and respondent were
married. The subsequent dissolution of their marriage, in case the
petition in Civil Case No. 04-7392 is granted, will have no effect
on the alleged crime that was committed at the time of the
subsistence of the marriage. In short, even if the marriage
between petitioner and respondent is annulled, petitioner could
still be held criminally liable since at the time of the commission
of the alleged crime, he was still married to respondent.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Augustus Cesar E. Azura for petitioner.
  Eduardo Fabian for private respondent.

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

Before the Court is a petition for review1 assailing the

Decision2 of the Court of Appeals, promulgated on 20
March 2006, in CA-G.R. SP No. 91867.

The Antecedent Facts

The facts are stated in the Court of Appeals’ decision:

On 25 October 2004, Maria Chrysantine Pimentel y
Lacap (private respondent) filed an action for frustrated
parricide against Joselito R. Pimentel (petitioner), docketed
as Criminal

_______________

1 Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

2 Rollo, pp. 27-34. Penned by Associate Justice Regalado E. Maambong
with Associate Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico and Lucenito N. Tagle,
concurring.

439

VOL. 630, SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 439

Pimentel vs. Peimentel

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c0c74a7e2d6bf8142003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/9
7/20/2019
Case No. Q-04-130415, before the Regional Trial Court of
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 630

Quezon City, which was raffled to Branch 223 (RTC

Quezon City).
On 7 February 2005, petitioner received summons to
appear before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City,
Branch 72 (RTC Antipolo) for the pre-trial and trial of Civil
Case No. 04-7392 (Maria Chrysantine Lorenza L. Pimentel
v. Joselito Pimentel) for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
under Section 36 of the Family Code on the ground of
psychological incapacity.
On 11 February 2005, petitioner filed an urgent motion
to suspend the proceedings before the RTC Quezon City on
the ground of the existence of a prejudicial question.
Petitioner asserted that since the relationship between the
offender and the victim is a key element in parricide, the
outcome of Civil Case No. 04-7392 would have a bearing in
the criminal case filed against him before the RTC Quezon
City.

The Decision of the Trial Court

The RTC Quezon City issued an Order dated 13 May

20053 holding that the pendency of the case before the RTC
Antipolo is not a prejudicial question that warrants the
suspension of the criminal case before it. The RTC Quezon
City held that the issues in Criminal Case No. Q-04-130415
are the injuries sustained by respondent and whether the
case could be tried even if the validity of petitioner’s
marriage with respondent is in question. The RTC Quezon
City ruled:

“WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing, the Motion to

Suspend Proceedings On the [Ground] of the Existence of a
Prejudicial Question is, for lack of merit, DENIED.
SO ORDERED.”4  

_______________

3 Id., at pp. 50-51. Penned by Presiding Judge Ramon A. Cruz.

4 Id., at p. 51.

440

440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pimentel vs. Peimentel

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. In its 22

August 2005 Order,5 the RTC Quezon City denied the
motion.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c0c74a7e2d6bf8142003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/9
7/20/2019 Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari
SUPREME withANNOTATED
COURT REPORTS application
VOLUME 630

for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary

restraining order before the Court of Appeals, assailing the
13 May 2005 and 22 August 2005 Orders of the RTC
Quezon City.

The Decision of the Court of Appeals

In its 20 March 2006 Decision, the Court of Appeals

dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals ruled that in
the criminal case for frustrated parricide, the issue is
whether the offender commenced the commission of the
crime of parricide directly by overt acts and did not perform
all the acts of execution by reason of some cause or accident
other than his own spontaneous desistance. On the other
hand, the issue in the civil action for annulment of
marriage is whether petitioner is psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations. The Court of Appeals ruled that even if the
marriage between petitioner and respondent would be
declared void, it would be immaterial to the criminal case
because prior to the declaration of nullity, the alleged acts
constituting the crime of frustrated parricide had already
been committed. The Court of Appeals ruled that all that is
required for the charge of frustrated parricide is that at the
time of the commission of the crime, the marriage is still
subsisting.
Petitioner filed a petition for review before this Court
assailing the Court of Appeals’ decision.

The Issue

The only issue in this case is whether the resolution of

the action for annulment of marriage is a prejudicial
question

_______________

5 Id., at p. 53.

441

VOL. 630, SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 441

Pimentel vs. Peimentel

that warrants the suspension of the criminal case for

frustrated parricide against petitioner.

The Ruling of this Court

The petition has no merit.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c0c74a7e2d6bf8142003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/9
7/20/2019 Civil Case Must beCOURT
SUPREME Instituted
REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 630

Before the Criminal Case

Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal
Procedure6 provides:

“Section 7. Elements of Prejudicial Question.—The elements

of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil
action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue
raised in the subsequent criminal action and (b) the resolution of
such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may
proceed.”

The rule is clear that the civil action must be instituted

first before the filing of the criminal action. In this case, the
Information7 for Frustrated Parricide was dated 30 August
2004. It was raffled to RTC Quezon City on 25 October
2004 as per the stamped date of receipt on the Information.
The RTC Quezon City set Criminal Case No. Q-04-130415
for pre-trial and trial on 14 February 2005. Petitioner was
served summons in Civil Case No. 04-7392 on 7 February
2005.8 Respondent’s petition9 in Civil Case No. 04-7392
was dated 4 November 2004 and was filed on 5 November
2004. Clearly, the civil case for annulment was filed after
the filing of the criminal case for frustrated parricide. As
such, the requirement of Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000
Rules on Criminal Procedure was not met since the civil
action was filed subsequent to the filing of the criminal
action.

_______________

6 Dated 1 December 2000.

7 Rollo, p. 54.
8 Id., at p. 56.
9 Id., at pp. 61-65.

442

442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pimentel vs. Peimentel

Annulment of Marriage is not a Prejudicial Question

in Criminal Case for Parricide

Further, the resolution of the civil action is not a

prejudicial question that would warrant the suspension of
the criminal action.
There is a prejudicial question when a civil action and a
criminal action are both pending, and there exists in the
civil action an issue which must be preemptively resolved
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c0c74a7e2d6bf8142003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/9
7/20/2019
before the criminal action SUPREME
may proceed because howsoever
COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 630

the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be

determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in
the criminal case.10 A prejudicial question is defined as:

“x x x one that arises in a case the resolution of which is a

logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the
cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. It is a question
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.”11

The relationship between the offender and the victim is

a key element in the crime of parricide,12 which punishes
any person “who shall kill his father, mother, or child,
whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants
or descendants, or his spouse.”13 The relationship between
the offender and the victim distinguishes the crime of
parricide from mur-

_______________

10 Jose v. Suarez, G.R. No. 176795, 30 June 2008, 556 SCRA 773.
11 Go v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 150329-30, 11 September 2007, 532
SCRA 574, 577-578.
12 People v. Dalag, 450 Phil. 304; 402 SCRA 254 (2003).
13 Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code.

443

VOL. 630, SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 443

Pimentel vs. Peimentel

der14 or homicide.15 However, the issue in the

annulment of marriage is not similar or intimately related
to the issue in the criminal case for parricide. Further, the
relationship between the offender and the victim is not
determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
The issue in the civil case for annulment of marriage
under Article 36 of the Family Code is whether petitioner is
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
marital obligations. The issue in parricide is whether the
accused killed the victim. In this case, since petitioner was
charged with frustrated parricide, the issue is whether he
performed all the acts of execution which would have killed
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c0c74a7e2d6bf8142003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/9
7/20/2019
respondent as a consequence but which, nevertheless, did
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 630

not produce it by reason of causes independent of

petitioner’s will.16 At the time of the commission of the
alleged crime, petitioner and respondent were married. The
subsequent dissolution of their marriage, in case the
petition in Civil Case No. 04-7392 is granted, will have no
effect on the alleged crime that was committed at the time
of the subsistence of the marriage. In short, even if the
marriage between petitioner and respondent is annulled,
petitioner could still be held criminally liable since at the
time of the commission of the alleged crime, he was still
married to respondent.
We cannot accept petitioner’s reliance on Tenebro v.
Court of Appeals17 that “the judicial declaration of the
nullity of a marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity retroacts to the date of the celebration of the
marriage insofar as the vinculum between the spouses is
concerned x x x.” First, the issue in Tenebro is the effect of
the judicial declaration of nullity of a second or subsequent
marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity on a
criminal liability for bigamy.

_______________

14 Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

15 Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.
16 See Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code.
17 467 Phil. 723; 423 SCRA 272 (2004).

444

444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pimentel vs. Peimentel

There was no issue of prejudicial question in that case.

Second, the Court ruled in Tenebro that “[t]here is x x x a
recognition written into the law itself that such a marriage,
although void ab initio, may still produce legal
consequences.”18 In fact, the Court declared in that case
that “a declaration of the nullity of the second marriage on
the ground of psychological incapacity is of absolutely no
moment insofar as the State’s penal laws are concerned.”19
In view of the foregoing, the Court upholds the decision
of the Court of Appeals. The trial in Criminal Case No. Q-
04-130415 may proceed as the resolution of the issue in
Civil Case No. 04-7392 is not determinative of the guilt or
innocence of petitioner in the criminal case.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the
20 March 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 91867.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c0c74a7e2d6bf8142003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/9
7/20/2019
SO ORDERED. SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 630

Peralta, Bersamin,** Abad and Villarama, Jr.,*** JJ.,

concur.

Petition denied, judgment affirmed.

Note.—The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial

question is to avoid two conflicting decisions. (Jose vs.
Suarez, 556 SCRA 773 [2008])
——o0o——  

_______________

18 Id., at p. 744; p. 284. Italicization in the original.

19 Id., at p. 742; p. 282.
** Designated additional member per Special Order No. 886 dated 1
September 2010.
*** Designated additional member per Raffle dated 8 September 2010.

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c0c74a7e2d6bf8142003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/9