Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 119 views

    Jurisprudence Bigamy Second Marriage Prejudicial Question

    Uploaded by

    joy
    The document discusses three Supreme Court cases regarding prejudicial questions: 1) The first case establishes that a prejudicial question arises when its resolution is logically precedent to and determinative of the issue in a case, and jurisdiction over the prejudicial question lies with another court. 2) The second case found that a finding in an annulment case that a second marriage was void precludes a verdict of bigamy in a criminal case regarding the same marriage. 3) The third case discusses how the requirements for a prejudicial question are met when the resolution of an annulment case could determine whether a defendant's consent in a second marriage was involuntary, which would preclude conviction for bigamy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Jurisprudence Bigamy Second Marriage Prejudicial Question

    Uploaded by

    joy
    119 views1 page
    The document discusses three Supreme Court cases regarding prejudicial questions: 1) The first case establishes that a prejudicial question arises when its resolution is logically precedent to and determinative of the issue in a case, and jurisdiction over the prejudicial question lies with another court. 2) The second case found that a finding in an annulment case that a second marriage was void precludes a verdict of bigamy in a criminal case regarding the same marriage. 3) The third case discusses how the requirements for a prejudicial question are met when the resolution of an annulment case could determine whether a defendant's consent in a second marriage was involuntary, which would preclude conviction for bigamy.

    Original Title

    Jurisprudence Bigamy second marriage prejudicial question.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses three Supreme Court cases regarding prejudicial questions: 1) The first case establishes that a prejudicial question arises when its resolution is logically precedent to and determinative of the issue in a case, and jurisdiction over the prejudicial question lies with another court. 2) The second case found that a finding in an annulment case that a second marriage was void precludes a verdict of bigamy in a criminal case regarding the same marriage. 3) The third case discusses how the requirements for a prejudicial question are met when the resolution of an annulment case could determine whether a defendant's consent in a second marriage was involuntary, which would preclude conviction for bigamy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    119 views1 page

    Jurisprudence Bigamy Second Marriage Prejudicial Question

    Uploaded by

    joy
    The document discusses three Supreme Court cases regarding prejudicial questions: 1) The first case establishes that a prejudicial question arises when its resolution is logically precedent to and determinative of the issue in a case, and jurisdiction over the prejudicial question lies with another court. 2) The second case found that a finding in an annulment case that a second marriage was void precludes a verdict of bigamy in a criminal case regarding the same marriage. 3) The third case discusses how the requirements for a prejudicial question are met when the resolution of an annulment case could determine whether a defendant's consent in a second marriage was involuntary, which would preclude conviction for bigamy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    MERARDO L. ZAPANTA vs. THE HON. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ETC., ET AL. G.R.

    No. L-14534 February 28, 1962

    We have heretofore defined a prejudicial question as that which arises in a case, the
    resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the
    cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal (People vs. Aragon, G.R. No. L-5930,
    February 17, 1954). The prejudicial question — we further said — must be
    determinative of the case before the court, and jurisdiction to try the same must be
    lodged in another court (People vs. Aragon, supra). These requisites are present in the
    case at bar. Should the question for annulment of the second marriage pending in the
    Court of First Instance of Pampanga prosper on the ground that, according to the
    evidence, petitioner's consent thereto was obtained by means of duress, force and
    intimidation, it is obvious that his act was involuntary and can not be the basis of his
    conviction for the crime of bigamy with which he was charged in the Court of First
    Instance of Bulacan. Thus, the issue involved in the action for the annulment of the
    second marriage is determinative of petitioner's guilt or innocence of the crime of
    bigamy.

    MILAGROS DE LA CRUZ vs. HON. JUDGE BIENVENIDO EJERCITO, et. al. G.R.
    No. L-40895 November 6, 1975

    We hold that the finding in the annulment case that the second marriage contracted by
    Milagros de la Cruz with Sergeant Gaccino was a nullity is determinative of her
    innocence and precludes the rendition of a verdict that she committed bigamy. To try
    the criminal case in the face of such a finding would be unwarranted.

    VIRGINIA B. PRADO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE HON. RAFAEL


    SISON G.R. No. L-37652. December 26, 1984

    The foregoing requisites being present in the case at bar, the suspensive effect of a
    prejudicial question comes into play. The Solicitor General’s opposition to the
    suspension of trial in the Bigamy Case on the allegations that the civil action for
    annulment was belatedly filed after petitioner had faced trial in the Bigamy Case and
    only to stave off prosecution; that the grounds for annulment of her second marriage
    are bereft of factual basis and truth in that petitioner would not have waited for two (2)
    years from the filing of the bigamy charge, or for almost four (4) years from the
    celebration of the second marriage, before filing the annulment case, if she had valid
    grounds to annul the same; that she had freely cohabited with Julio Manalansang for
    about six (6) months after their marriage; and that even her mother was present during
    the marriage ceremony, are all defenses which may be raised in the Annulment Case,
    and which must still be proved. Should petitioner be able to establish that her consent
    to the second marriage was, indeed, obtained by means of force and intimidation, her
    act of entering into marriage with Julio Manalansang would be involuntary, and there
    can be no conviction for the crime of Bigamy.

    And while it may be, as contended by the Solicitor General, that the mere filing of an
    Annulment Case does not automatically give rise to a prejudicial question as to bar trial
    of a Bigamy Case, considering the gravity of the charge, petitioner cannot be deprived
    of her right to prove her grounds for annulment, which could well be determinative of
    her guilt or innocence. The State is not thereby deprived from proceeding with the
    criminal case in the event that the Court decrees against petitioner in the Annulment
    Case.

    You might also like