No effect

The relationship between the offender and the victim, like that of being spouses, is a key element in the crime of parricide. But will the subsequent nullification of the marriage between the accused-husband and his victim-wife have an effect on whether he committed parricide or not? This is the issue raised in this case of Boy and Lita.

After several years of marriage, Boy and Lita’s marital relationship turned for the worse. Frequent quarrels between them invariably ended in violence. In one of those quarrels, Boy inflicted serious injuries upon Lita that would have killed her if she was not timely taken to the hospital. As a result of that incident, Lita filed a complaint of frustrated parricide against Boy. After preliminary investigation, an Information charging Boy with Frustrated Parricide was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City.

Having had enough of their rocky marriage, Lita also subsequently filed in the RTC of Antipolo a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of their marriage on the ground of Boy’s alleged psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. When Boy received the summons to appear before the RTC of Antipolo for the pre-trial and trial of said case, he filed an urgent motion to suspend the proceedings of the criminal case for frustrated parricide before the QC RTC. Boy asserted that since the relationship between the offender and the victim is a key element in parricide, the outcome of the civil case will have a bearing on the criminal case. In other words, the resolution for the nullity of their marriage is a prejudicial question that warrants suspension of the criminal case for frustrated parricide against him. Was Boy correct?

No. The rule in prejudicial questions contained in Section 7, Rule 11 of the Rules of Court is clear. The civil action must be filed first before the filing of the criminal action. In this case, the Information for Frustrated Parricide was filed first in QC RTC. The civil action for declaration of nullity of the marriage was filed subsequently to the filing said criminal action.

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 exist in the civil action an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed, because how the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case.

In this case, the issue in the civil case for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the FC is whether Boy is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations whereas the issue in the criminal case for frustrated parricide is whether he performed all the acts which would have killed Lita as a consequence, but which, nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of Boy’s will. At the time of the alleged commission of the crime, Boy and Lita were married. The subsequent dissolution of their marriage, if the petition in the 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 Boy and Lita is declared null and void, Boy could still be held liable since at the time of the alleged commission of the crime, he was still married to Lita. A declaration of nullity of the marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity is of no moment insofar as the State’s penal laws are concerned. Boy and Lita’s case is similar to the case of Pimentel vs. Pimentel, G.R. 172060, September 13, 2010, 630 SCRA, 436.