Is the resolution of the civil action for specific per

formance, recovery of overpayment ofand damages, a preju- icial question sufficient to warrant the suspension of the rial of the criminal cases for violation of B.P. 22?

ANS: No. For a civil action to be considered prejudicial to a riminal case as to cause the suspension of the criminal proceedings ntil the final resolution of the civil, the following requisites must be resent: (1) the civil case involves facts intimately related to those pon which the criminal prosecution would be based; (2) in the esolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil action, the guilt or inocence of the accused would necessarily be determined; and (3) iris diction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal.

The issue in the criminal cases for violation of B.P. 22 is whether the accused knowingly issued worthless checks. The issue in the civil action for specific performance, overpayment and damages is whether the debtor overpaid his obligations to his creditor. If after trial in the civil case, the debtor is shown to have overpaid respondent, it does not follow that he cannot be held liable for the bouncing checks he issued, for the mere issuance of worthless checks with knowledge of the insufficiency of funds to support the checks is itself an offense. (Sabandal vs. Tongco, G.R. No. 124498, October 5, 2001.)

85. A, B and C are the heirs of X and Y who left a parcel of land. A was able to obtain a title over the lands, so B and C filed an action for declaration of nullity of the title and partition. They occupied a portion of the land without A’s knowledge and consent. Hence, they were sued for violation of P.D. 772, otherwise known as the Anti-Squatting Law.

Before they were arraigned, they moved to suspend the criminal action on the ground of a prejudicial question.

Is a partition case a prejudicial question to a criminal case for violation of P.D. 772?

ANS: The motion should be granted on the ground of a prejudicial question.

In the criminal case, the issue is whether B and C occupied a piece of land not belonging to them but to A and against the latter’s will. Whether or not the land they occupied belongs to them is the issue in the civil case they previously filed for the nullity of A’s title and for partition.. The resolution, therefore, of this question would necessarily be determinative of B’s and C’s criminal liability for squatting. In other words, whatever may be the ultimate resolution will be determinative of the guilt or innocence of B and C in the criminal case. Surely, if B and C are co-owners of the lot in question, they cannot be found guilty of squatting because they are much entitled to the use and occupation of the land as A. Ownership is, thus, the pivotal question. Since this is the question in the civil case, the proceedings in the criminal case must in the meantime be suspended. Prior to amendment, Sec. 5, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure of 2000 provides that the two (2)

19-36 PRELIMINARY TITLE Human Relations

jntial elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the civil action )lves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines ither or not the criminal action may proceed. (Apa vs. Fernandez,

No. 112381, March 20,1995, 242 SCRA 509, 513.)

86. A, under duress, married B, During the pendency he case for annulment filed by A, B married C. The Fiscal,

>n the complaint of C, prosecuted B for bigamy. Can B cessfully interpose a prejudicial question to suspend the

>secution of the bigamy charge? Give reasons.

ANS: B cannot successfully interpose a prejudicial question to pend the prosecution of the bigamy charge. As held by the SC in pie vs. Aragon (94 Phil. 257), where the nullity of the marriage ue to the fault of the party who is accused of bigamy, such party

? not avail himself of his own malfeasance in order to defeat the on based on his criminal act. Otherwise, if he is permitted to do that would violate the principle that in order to obtain redress, a son must go to court with clean hands.

87. A was charged with bigamy at the instance of his t wife, B. Subsequently, his second wife, C, filed an action the annulment of her marriage to A on the ground of ce and intimidation. By way of defense, A, in turn, filed a rd-party complaint against his first wife, B, for annulment their marriage on the ground of force and intimidation.

;er, he filed a motion to suspend the criminal case on the

>und that the question to be resolved in the civil case is judicial to the question of bigamy in the criminal case.

5 court denied the motion. Is this correct?

ANS: The denial of the motion is correct. The situation here aarkedly different from the situation in the cases of Merced vs.

z and Zapanta vs. Monteza. Here, when the accused was indicted bigamy, the fact that two (2) marriage ceremonies had been tracted appeared to be undisputable. This was followed by the iplaint filed by the second spouse for annulment of the marriage

;he ground of violence and intimidation. It was only later on when as defendant in the civil action, filed a third-party complaint

against his first spouse for annulment of their marriage on the ground of force and intimidation. As a matter of law, parties to a marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted to the judgment of a competent court and only when the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is no such declaration, the presumption is that the marriage exists. Therefore, he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy.

(Landicho vs. Relova, 22 SCRA 731.)

88. The husband filed a petition for nullity of marriage