Scribd
Upload
150 views2 pages

Prado V People

Virginia Prado was charged with bigamy for entering a second marriage while still married to her first husband. She filed for annulment of the second marriage, claiming lack of consent. She argued this annulment case was a prejudicial question that should suspend her bigamy trial. For a civil case to be prejudicial to a criminal case, the facts must be intimately related and resolution must determine guilt or innocence, with jurisdiction in another court. The Court found these requisites met, so the annulment was prejudicial and suspended the bigamy trial until the annulment case was resolved, as its outcome could determine her guilt in the bigamy case.

Uploaded by

Jor Lonzaga
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
150 views2 pages

Prado V People

Virginia Prado was charged with bigamy for entering a second marriage while still married to her first husband. She filed for annulment of the second marriage, claiming lack of consent. She argued this annulment case was a prejudicial question that should suspend her bigamy trial. For a civil case to be prejudicial to a criminal case, the facts must be intimately related and resolution must determine guilt or innocence, with jurisdiction in another court. The Court found these requisites met, so the annulment was prejudicial and suspended the bigamy trial until the annulment case was resolved, as its outcome could determine her guilt in the bigamy case.

Uploaded by

Jor Lonzaga
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Prado v.

People (1984)
Topic: Prejudicial question; suspension of arraignment
FACTS:
In 1971, an Information was filed with the then CFI of Manila, charging
petitioner Virginia Prado with the crime of Bigamy (Bigamy Case), for
having unlawfully contracted a second marriage with Julio Manalansang
(Julio), while still being lawfully wedded to Arturo Espiritu (Arturo).
In 1973, petitioner filed with the CFI of Rizal an action for annulment
(Annulment Case) of her marriage to Julio on the ground of lack of consent
and that she never freely cohabited with him.
Later on, a Motion to Suspend Trial by Reason of the Existence of
Prejudicial Question was filed by petitioner in the Bigamy Case. The
prosecution opposed, arguing that such motion was devised to delay the
proceedings. The CFI denied the suspension of trial.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a pending civil suit for annulment of marriage constitutes a
prejudicial question in a Bigamy Case. (In this case, YES)
RULING:
For a civil action to be considered prejudicial to a criminal case as to cause
the suspension of the criminal proceedings until the final resolution of the
civil, the following REQUISITES must be present:
1) the civil case involvesy facts intimately related to those upon which
the criminal prosecution would be based;
2) in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil action, the
guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be
determined; and
3) jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal.
In this case, all the requisites are present and the suspensive effect of a
prejudicial question shall operate.
The SolGen opposed the suspension by arguing that the filing of the
Annulment Case was a little bit late (2 years from the filing of the Bigamy
Case and 4 years from her second marriage).
The Court ruled that the filing of an Annulment Case does not per se
automatically give rise to a prejudicial question to bar trial of a Bigamy
Case. However, considering the gravity of the charge, petitioner cannot be
deprived of her right to prove her grounds for annulment, which could be
determinative of her guilt or innocence.
WHEREFORE, the assailed order of September 19, 1973 is hereby set
aside. As the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 5877 had already been
suspended, the same shall be resumed by the proper Regional Trial Court
upon the final determination of Family Case No. 029 of the former Juvenile
and Domestic Relations Court, Caloocan City, if the same has not yet been
terminated, and if the Decision in the latter case should so warrant.

You might also like