1st UMALI VS. IAC -- no PQ Petitioners are officers of the Orosea Development Corp.

1979, Petitioners purchaes from the spouses Honorio and Solina Edano Lot 49 for the sum of 1M plus payable in 4 installments The 1st check was honored but the subsequent check was dishonored by the bank. Despite demand, no payment was made. The seller filed a criminal case for violatioj of BP 22. The buyer moved for the suspension of the criminal action on the grund of the existence of prejudicial question because according to him, he filed an action for the annulment of the deed of sale as there was fraud on the part of the seller when he was not told that the property was occupied by squatters. SC- no PQ. Even if the civil case were to e finally adjudged to the effect that the deed of sale should be annulled, such declaration would be of no material importance in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case of the latter involving BP 22. BP 22 is a special law. 2nd CASE YAP vs. PARAS 1971- according to yap, Paras sold to her his share in the intestate estate for P300 19 yrs later- 1990 , Paras sold the same property to Santiago saa for P5k evidence by a notraized deed of absolute sale. When Yap learned of the second sale , she filed a complaint for ESTAFA against Paras and Saya- ang . On the same date she filed a complaint for the nullification of the said sale with the RTC of GenSan On 1991, before arraignment of the accused, the trial judge motu proprio issued an order dismissing the criminal case on the ground of PQ Invoking the Ras case ISSUE: is the dismissal correct HELD: in the Ras case there was a motion to suspend the criminal action on the ground that the defense in the civil case had to be treated out first. By contrast , there was no motion to suspend in the case at bar and no less importantly the respondent judge had not been informed of the defense Paras was raising in the civil action. It is worth remarking that not every defense raised in the civil action will raise a PQ to justify suspension of the criminal action. The order dismissing the criminal action w/o motion for suspension in accordance with Rule 111, Sec. 6 of the 1985 Rules on Crimpro as amended, and even w/o the accused indicating his defense in the civil case for the annulment of the second sale, suggests only ignorance of the law but also bias on the part of the respondent judge. 3rd case TUANDA VS SANDIGANBAYAN ( there is PQ) involves the appointment of 2 sectoral representatives in one of the towns in Negros Oriental. The mayor objected to the appointment of Estrellanes and Binaohan as sec rep. Because it did not observe the requirement under BP 337 LGC where it was required that before a sec rep can be appointed, there must be 1st representation with the sectors that would be affected by such appointment. But this was not complied with. sec. Luis Santos merely appointed them without complying with the requirements. So, Mayor Tuanda filed a complaint before the RTC for the nullification of the appointment of Binaohan and Estrellans as sec rep. Meanwhile, Binaohan and Estrellanes filed a complaint before the Sandiganbayan. According to them, there was there was this alleged failure on the part of the mayor to pay their salaries, wages as well as their per diems.

TUANDA moved for the suspension of the criminal proceedings before the Sandiganbayan on the ground of the existence of PQ. SC: all the elements of the a PQ are clearly and unmistakably present in this case. There is no doubt that the facts and issues involved in the civil action and the criminal case are closely related. The filing of the criminal case was premised on petitioner's alleged partiality and evident bad faith in not paying PR salaries and per diems as sec rep, while the civil action was instituted precisely to resolve WON the designation of PR as sec rep were ma in accordance with law. 4th Case BOBIS VS. BOBIS 1985 - R contracted a 1st marriage w/ Maria Dulce Javier. Without having the 1st marriage annulled, he contracted a 2nd marriage with petitioner Imelda BOBIS. 1996- allegedly 3rd marriage with Julia Sally Hernandez. 1998 - P filed a criminal complaint for bigamy against the respondent Thereafter, R filed a judicial declaration of nullify of marriage against P on the ground that it was celebrated without marriage license. Respondent then filed a motion to suspend the proceedings in the criminal case for bigamy invoking the pending civil case for nullify of 1st marriage as a PQ to he criminal case HELD : no PQ!!!! It should be stressed that not every defense raised in the civil action may be used as prejudicial question to obtain the suspension of the criminal action. When respondent was indicted for bigamy, the fact that he entred into 2 marriage ceremonies appeared indubitable. It was only after he was sued by petitioner for bigamy that he thought of seeking a judicial declaration of nullify of his 1st marriage. The obvious intent therefore is that respondent merely resorted to the civil action as potential question for the purpose of frustrating or delaying his criminal prosecution. In the light of Art 49, w.o first having obtained the judicial declaration of nullify of the first marriage, cannot be said to have validly entered into the 2nd marriage. In the case at bar, respondent was for all intents and purposes regarded as married man at the time he contracted his 2nd marriage with petitioner. Against this leal backdrop, any decision in the civil action for nullify would not erase the fact that respondent entered into a second marriage during the subsistence of a 1st marriage. Tus, a decision in the civil case is not essential to the determination of the criminal charge. Hence there is no PQ and respondent cannot b e permitted to use his own malfeasance to defeat the criminal action against him. 5th Case BELTRAN VS. PPL Petitioner Meynardo Beltran and Charmaine Felix were married on june 1973. 4 yrs after , P filed a petition for nullify of marriage on he ground of Art 36. , FC the wife alleged that it was P who abandoned the conjugal home and lived with another woman. She subsequently file a CRIMINAL suit for CONCUBINAGE under the RPC. Petitioner filed a motion to defer proceedings on the ground of the pendency of the civil case for nullify, etc. p further argued that he could be acquitted of the charge of concubinage should his marriage be declared null and void. HELD: NO PQ!

In the case at bar the parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted to judgment of the competent courts and only when the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is no such declaration the presumption is that the marriage exists for all intents and purposes.