Natividad-Florentino v. Florentino
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Antonio G. Florentino, Jr. allegedly married Marilou Jarmin on May 18, 1984, but claims no solemnization occurred despite signing a Marriage Contract. He lost contact with Marilou, never consummated or registered the marriage. On November 8, 1999, believing himself free, he married Maria Victoria Natividad-Florentino; they cohabited. In January 2011, Victoria obtained NSO Certification confirming two marriages, leading her to file bigamy complaint after learning of concealment. 2. Procedural History: On April 19, 2012, Antonio filed petition for declaration of nullity of first marriage (Civil Case No. 12-327, RTC Makati Br. 144). On May 22, 2012, Victoria filed bigamy case (Crim. Case No. 12-1476, RTC Makati Br. 61). RTC denied Antonio's Motion to Suspend Proceedings (Res. Nov. 23, 2012). CA initially denied certiorari (Sep. 28, 2018), but on reconsideration granted it via Amended Decision (July 3, 2019), ruling first marriage void ab initio for lack of solemnizing officer and prejudicial question exists; denied OSG/Victoria MCR (Jan. 12, 2021). 3. The Petition: Petitions for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 by People (G.R. No. 255636) and Victoria (G.R. No. 255335), assailing CA Amended Decision and Resolution, arguing pendency of nullity petition not prejudicial question; consolidated.
Issue(s)
Whether the pendency of a Petition for declaration of nullity of marriage constitutes a prejudicial question warranting suspension of criminal proceedings for bigamy under Rule 111, Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Whether the alleged void ab initio nature of the first marriage requires prior judicial declaration or suspends bigamy prosecution.
Ruling
Petitions PARTIALLY GRANTED. CA Amended Decision (July 3, 2019) and Resolution (Jan. 12, 2021) in CA-G.R. SP No. 132689 REVERSED and SET ASIDE. RTC Makati Br. 61 DIRECTED to proceed with dispatch with Criminal Case No. 12-1476.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: Rule 111, Section 7 defines prejudicial question as requiring (a) previously instituted civil action with issue similar/intimately related to criminal action, and (b) resolution determines if criminal may proceed. Not every civil action qualifies; dependency needed where civil resolution determinative of criminal. In bigamy, issues related but not interdependent; validity of first marriage litigated as defense in criminal case without suspension. Rationale avoids conflicting decisions and unnecessary prosecution burden, but criminal proceeds independently per Rule 111, Section 6. Pendency of nullity petition irrelevant as trial court competent to receive evidence on validity. Allowing suspension creates dangerous precedent for delay/evasion, betraying marriage's inviolability (Art. XV, Sec. 2, Constitution). On Issue 2: Article 349 RPC imposes prision mayor for second marriage before first legally dissolved. Even if first marriage questioned, bigamy proceeds; accused raises void ab initio as defense per Pulido v. People, abandoning restrictive precedents. In Pulido, Court held judicial declaration unnecessary for void ab initio marriages in bigamy defense, applying retroactive effects, Article 40 Family Code intent, penal law construction. Applies to Civil/Family Code marriages; Article 40 did not amend Article 349 RPC. Accused must establish defense via evidence in criminal trial; civil pendency does not suspend, ensuring truth in proper forum.
Main Doctrine
The pendency of a civil petition for declaration of absolute nullity of a prior marriage does not give rise to a prejudicial question under Rule 111, Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure that warrants suspension of criminal proceedings for bigamy. This is because the criminal court has jurisdiction to determine the validity of the first marriage as a defense, allowing collateral attack on void ab initio marriages without prior judicial declaration, as established in Pulido v. People. The rationale is to prevent delay in prosecution, avoid conflicting judgments, and protect the constitutional inviolability of marriage, ensuring the accused proves nullity through evidence in the criminal trial itself.