Scribd
Upload
295 views1 page

Digest - Pimentel Vs Pimentel

The Supreme Court ruled that the resolution of the civil case for annulment of marriage would not be a prejudicial question that warrants suspending the criminal case for frustrated parricide. The elements of a prejudicial question were not met as the civil case was filed after the criminal case and resolving it would not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. While the relationship between the offender and victim is relevant to parricide, the issue in the annulment case of whether the petitioner was psychologically incapacitated differs from whether he attempted to kill the respondent. Resolving the annulment petition would not impact the criminal case as the alleged crime was committed when they were still married.

Uploaded by

japinx
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
295 views1 page

Digest - Pimentel Vs Pimentel

The Supreme Court ruled that the resolution of the civil case for annulment of marriage would not be a prejudicial question that warrants suspending the criminal case for frustrated parricide. The elements of a prejudicial question were not met as the civil case was filed after the criminal case and resolving it would not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. While the relationship between the offender and victim is relevant to parricide, the issue in the annulment case of whether the petitioner was psychologically incapacitated differs from whether he attempted to kill the respondent. Resolving the annulment petition would not impact the criminal case as the alleged crime was committed when they were still married.

Uploaded by

japinx
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/ 1

Joselito Pimentel vs Maria L.

Pimentel
G.R. No. 172060, 13 September 2010
Carpio, J.:

FACTS:
Respondent, Maria Chrysantine Pimentel, filed an action for frustrated parricide against petitioner, Joselito R. Pimentel.
The Information for Frustrated Parricide was dated 30 August 2004 and was raffled to RTC Quezon City on 25 October
2004.
She also filed on 5 November 2004, a petition, dated 4 November 2004, for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under
Section 36 of the Family Code on the ground of psychological incapacity.
Petitioner received summons to appear before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City on 7 February 2005, for the pre-
trial and trial of the Civil Case.
He then filed an urgent motion to suspend the proceedings before the RTC Quezon City on the ground of the existence
of a prejudicial question asserting that 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.

The RTC Quezon City held that the pendency of the case before the RTC Antipolo is not a prejudicial question that
warrants the suspension of the criminal case before it. The Court of Appeals also denied the petition holding that the
issue in the criminal case for frustrated parricide differs from the issue in the civil action for annulment of marriage. It
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. At the time of the commission of the crime, the marriage is
still subsisting.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the resolution of the action for annulment of marriage is a prejudicial question that warrants the
suspension of the criminal case for frustrated parricide.

HELD:
The elements of a prejudicial question under Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, which 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, were not
met.

Civil action must be instituted first before the filing of the criminal action. In this case, the civil case for annulment was
filed after the filing of the criminal case for frustrated parricide. Further, the resolution of the civil action is not a prejudicial
question that would warrant the suspension of the criminal action.

There is a prejudicial question when a civil action and a criminal action are both pending, and there exists in the civil
action an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed because
howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the
accused in the criminal case.

The relationship between the offender and the victim is a key element in the crime of parricide. 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. In this case, since petitioner was charged with frustrated parricide, the issue is whether he
performed all the acts of execution which would have killed respondent as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of petitioner’s will. At the time of the commission of
the alleged crime, petitioner and respondent were married. The subsequent dissolution of their marriage, in case
the petition in Civil Case is granted, will have no effect on the alleged crime that was committed at the time of the
subsistence of the marriage. In short, 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

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy