Case Digest: Pimentel vs. Pimentel, G.R. No. 172060. September 13, 2010

 Rule 111 | Criminal Procedure 

NamesJoselito R. Pimentel
Maria Chrysantine Pimentel y Lacap
PrincipleInstitution of criminal and civil actions
Section 7, Rule 111 - Prejudicial Question


Facts: 
(1) On October 25, 2004, Private Respondent Maria Chrysantine Pimentel filed an action for frustrated parricide against Petitioner Joselito R. Pimentel before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.

(2) On February 7 2005, petitioner received summons to appear before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, for the pretrial and trial of civil case for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Section 36 of the Family Code on the ground of psychological incapacity.

(3) On February 11 2005, petitioner filed an urgent motion to suspend the proceedings before the RTC Quezon City  Petitioner asserted that since the relationship between the offender and the victim is a key element in parricide, the outcome of civil case would have a bearing in the criminal case filed against him before the RTC Quezon City.


Assailed Decision:
CA 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.


Issue:
WoN the resolution of the action for annulment of marriage is a prejudicial question that warrants the suspension of the criminal case for frustrated parricide against petitioner.


Held:
Denied.

Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure 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. 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.

Further, the resolution of the civil action is not a prejudicial question that would warrant the suspension of the criminal action.

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.”

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.

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. 



✨✨✨

Recit Version

Facts:
On October 25, 2004, Maria Chrysantine Pimentel filed a frustrated parricide case against Joselito R. Pimentel. 
On February 7, 2005, Joselito received a summons for a civil case for the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity.
On February 11, 2005, Joselito filed an urgent motion to suspend the proceedings before the RTC Quezon City due to the existence of a prejudicial question, arguing that the outcome of the civil case could affect the criminal case filed against him.

 

Assailed Ruling:
CA ruled that the nullity of the marriage would not affect the criminal case as long as the marriage was subsisting at the time the crime was committed.

 

Issue:
WoN the resolution of the action for annulment of marriage is a prejudicial question that warrants the suspension of the criminal case for frustrated parricide against petitioner.
 
Held:
Denied.

The civil action for annulment of marriage was filed after the criminal case for frustrated parricide, which violates Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure. 
The resolution of the civil action is not a prejudicial question that would suspend the criminal action. The relationship between the offender and the victim is a key element in the crime of parricide, but the issue in the annulment of marriage is not related to the issue in the criminal case. 
Even if the marriage is annulled, the accused can still be held criminally liable since at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, he was still married to the victim.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)

Sovereign Equality of States/Principle of sovereign equality UN Charter of 1945 All states are equal before international law no matter the size of their territory, population, economy or military. All states have equal rights and duties under international law, and that no state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state. Positive Consequences: All states have a voice in international affairs .   All states have the opportunity to participate in international organizations and to negotiate and conclude treaties. This helps to ensure that the interests of all states are represented in the development of international law and policy. No state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state.  This helps to protect the sovereignty of all states and to prevent the use of force or coercion to achieve political objectives. States have the right to develop their own political, economic, and social systems without interference from othe...
Read more

Commercial Laws 1: R.A. No. 11057 — Personal Property Security Act

  Commercial Law TITLE XVI Personal Property Security Act Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises are sources of growth and innovation. They contribute to and benefit from future growth. Their increased participation in global trade "can have significant impact in reducing poverty through employment creation, productivity improvements and economies of scale." Congress passed the Personal Property Security Act in order to provide Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) more access to "credit at the least cost through the establishment of a unified and modern legal framework for securing obligations with personal property ." It was explained:  According to the 2015 Philippine Statistics Authority data, there are 896,839 micro-small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) that established in the Philippines.  These MSMEs generated a total of 4,784,870 jobs in 2015 versus 2,181,819 for the large enterprises.  This indicates that the MSMEs contributed almost 61 % o...
Read more

Land Title and Deeds: Chapter 1 — What Lands are Capable of Being Registered

Chapter I What Lands are Capable of Being Registered All lands in the Philippines are presumed to be lands of the public domain, and therefore, owned by the State. This rule finds support in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution:  Section 2 . All lands of the public domain , waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State . With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least 60 per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be fo...
Read more