ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 120582. May 17, 1999]

LENI O. CHOA vs. HON. BELDIA & ALFONSO CHOA

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAY 17 1999.

G.R. No. 120582 (Leni O. Choa vs. Hon. Rolindo O. Beldia, Jr., Judge. RTC, Branch 41, Bacolod City; and Alfonso Choa.)

This petition for certiorari and mandamus seeks to annul and set aside the order dated October 26, 19941 [Petition, rollo, p. 33.] denying petitioner's motion for leave to intervene and motion to dismiss, and the order dated October 27, 19942 [Petition, rollo, pp. 34-36.] denying the motion to dismiss filed by Bacolod's Assistant City Prosecutor Armando P. Abanado.

In 1991, petitioner Leni Choa initiated a case for concubinage against her husband, Alfonso Choa, in the MTCC, Bacolod City, docketed as Criminal Case NO. 49106. In March 1994, when the promulgation of the decision was about to take place, Alfonso filed with the RTC, Bacolod City, a complaint for annulment of marriage based on psychological incapacity. Thus, Alfonso filed with the MTCC a motion in an order dated March 23, 1994. His motion for reconsideration having been likewise denied, on June 22, 1994, he filed with the RTC, Bacolod City, a petition for certiorari with injunction against the trial court. On July 13, 1994, the RTC issued a restraining order, and denied Leni Choa's motion for intervention.3 [Ibid, pp. 79-80.]

Hence, this petition.

The issue is whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in suspending the promulgation of judgement in Criminal Case No. 49106 of the MTCC in the concubinage case due to a prejudicial question.

A prejudicial question comes into play generally in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action are both pending and there exist in the former an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed, because howsoever the issue in the civil action resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt innocence of the accused in the criminal case.4 [Carlos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109887, February 10, 1997.]

The prejudicial question is the issue raised in the civil case for declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Under this article, a marriage was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the marital obligations of marriage.5 [Arturo M. Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, vol. 1, p. 274.] True enough, the nullity of marriage between petitioner and private respondent brings about two things: One, there is no marriage at all; Two, there is no ground to convict Alfonso Choa of concubinage because one element of the crime is not attendant, that is, the man must be married at the time of its commission.

The TRO issued by the RTC merely interlocutory; hence, the proper remedy is appeal in due time from the decision of the case.

WHEREFORE, finding that the regional trial court committed no grave abuse of discretion, we resolve to DENY the petition.

No costs.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE