Rule 111 - Pimentel v. Pimentel [DIGEST]

Pimentel v. Pimentel G.R. No. 172060 Topic: Rule 111; Prejudicial question FACTS:

On October 2004, private respondent Maria Pimentel filed a case for frustrated parricide against oselito Pimentel !petitioner" before t#e R$% of &ue'on %it() On *ebruar( 200+, petitioner received summons ordering #im to attend t#e pretrial and trial of t#e civil case for t#e -eclaration of .ullit( of Marriage on t#e ground of ps(c#ological incapacit( before t#e R$% of /ntipolo) %onsequentl(, petitioner filed a motion to suspend t#e criminal proceedings before t#e R$% of &ue'on %it(, on t#e ground t#at t#ere eists a prejudicial question, and t#at t#e outcome of t#e civil case ould #ave a bearing, and is material to t#e resolution of t#e criminal case) $#e R$% #eld t#at t#e pending civil case before t#e R$% of /ntipolo does not pose a prejudicial question, and t#at t#e criminal case can proceed despite t#e pendenc( of t#e civil case) On appeal to t#e %/, t#e same as dismissed) $#e %/ ruled t#at even if t#e civil case as resolved, and t#at marriage beteen  petitioner and respondent as declared void, t#is ould be immaterial to t#e criminal case of parricide, marriage not being an essential element of t#e crime) ence, t#e petition) ISSUE:

3#et#er or not t#e civil case !for -eclaration of .ullit( of Marriage" constitutes a prejudicial question t#at ould arrant a suspension of t#e criminal case of frustrated parricide RULING  RATI!:

$#e petition #as no merit) *irst, t#e %ourt ruled t#at, to constitute a prejudicial question, t#e civil case must first be instituted before t#e criminal action in accordance it# ec) 5 of Rule 111) 6n t#e present case, t#e civil case as filed onl( after t#e criminal case) econd, t#e annulment of marriage is not a prejudicial question in a criminal case for parricide) $#e relations#ip beteen t#e offender and t#e victim distinguis#es t#e crime of parricide from murder or  #omicide) oever, t#e issue of annulment of marriage is not similar or so intimatel( related to t#e criminal case) *urt#er, suc# relations#ip is not determinative of t#e guilt or innocence of t#e accused in t#e criminal case) 6t is important to note t#at, at t#e time of t#e commission of t#e crime of parricide,  petitioner and respondent ere still married) $#e subsequent dissolution of marriage ill #ave no effect #atsoever on t#e alleged crime t#at as committed at t#e time of t#e subsistence of t#e marriage)