Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

ARTHUR TE V CA, LILIANA CHOA

FACTS:Petition for review on certiorari which seeks to reverse the Decisionof the Court of
Appeals denying Te's motion for reconsideration.Arthur Te and Liliana Choa were married in
Sept 1988. They do notlive together but meet regularly until after Liliana gave birth thatArthur
stopped visiting her.On May 20, 1990, while their marriage was still subsisting, Arthurcontracted
a second marriage with Julieta Santella.On August 1990, Liliana filed an information charging
Arthur withbigamy.Meanwhile, in July 1990, Arthur Te filed an action for annulment onthe
ground that he was forced to marry her, that she concealed herpregnancy by another man at
the time of their marriage andpsychologically incapacity.On November 8, 1990, Liliana also filed
with the ProfessionalRegulation Commission (PRC) an administrative case againstpetitioner
and Santella for the revocation of their respectiveengineering licenses on the ground that they
committed acts of immorality and an act of falsification against Arthur when he statedin his 2
nd
marriage contract that he was still single.After the prosecution or criminal case, petitoner filed
demurrer toevidence and motion to inhibit the judge were filed but wereeventually denied by the
court. Thus:<A.> petitioner filed a petition for certiorari filed with the CAalleging grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the trial court judge,Judge Cezar C. Peralejo, for(1) exhibiting
antagonism and animosity towards his counsel;(2) violating the due process by denying his
motion forreconsideration and demurrer to evidence(3) x x x
(4) ruling that in a criminal case only prima facie evidence is
sufficient for conviction of an accused.<B.>Petitioner filed with the Board of Civil Engineering of
the PRC amotion to suspend the proceedings therein in view of the pendencyof the case for
annulment of his 1
st
marriage and case for bigamy,but it was subsequently denied. Thus, he filed with the CA
anotherpetition for certiorari against Board for grave abuse of discretion:(1) NOT holding that
the annulment case is prejudicial to theoutcome of the administrative case;(2) X X X(3) making
an overly-sweeping interpretation that Section 32 of theRules and Regulations Governing the
Regulation and Practice of Professionals does not allow the suspension of the
administrativeproceeding before the PRC Board despite the pendency of criminaland/or
administrative proceedings against the same respondentinvolving the same set of facts.CA
rendered ff decision:1. upheld
the RTCs denial of the motion to inhibit due topetitioners failure to show any concrete evidence
that the trial
court judge exhibited partiality and had prejudged the case.2. denial of motion to suspend the
proceedings on the ground of prejudicial question was in accord with law
3. affirmed the RTCs denial of the demurrer to evidence filed by
petitioner for his failure to set forth persuasive grounds to supportthe same4. no grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the Board5.
no prejudicial question
existed since the action sought to besuspended is administrative in nature, and the other action
involvedis a civil caseISSUES:1.
WON there is a prejudicial question between the civil case of annulment and criminal case of
bigamy.2.

WON there is a prejudicial question between the civil case of annulment and administrative
case.3.

WON there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of CA andBoard.HELD: No, No, No*
Prejudicial Question - one based on a fact distinct and separatefrom the crime but so intimately
connected with it that itdetermines the guilt or innocence of the accused, and for it tosuspend
the criminal action, it must appear not only that said caseinvolves facts intimately related to
those upon which the criminalprosecution would be based but also that in the resolution of
theissue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of theaccused would
necessarily be determined.1. Civil case for annulment did NOT pose a prejudicial question tothe
criminal case of bigamy.T
he outcome of the civil case for annulment of petitioners marriage
to private respondent had no bearing upon the determination of
petitioners innocence or guilt in the criminal case for bigamy,
because all that is required for bigamy to prosper is that the 1
st
marriage be subsisting at the time the 2
nd
marriage is contracted.Even a declaration that their marriage was void ab initio would
NOTnecessarily absolve him from criminal liability. Art. 40 of Family Codeis already in effect at
the time of their marriage (Sept 1988) statingthat a marriage, even one which is void or
voidable, shall be deemedvalid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding,2. Civil case for
annulment does NOT pose a prejudicial question tosuspend an administrative proceeding.There
is no prejudicial question where one case is administrativeand the other is civil. The concept of
prejudicial question involves acivil and a criminal case.Furthermore, Section 32 of the Rules and
Regulations Governing theRegulation and Practice of Professionals of the PRC Board
expresslyprovides that the administrative proceedings before it shall not besuspended
notwithstanding the existence of a criminal and/or civilcase against the respondent involving the
same facts as theadministrative case.The Board shall proceed independently with the
investigation of thecase and shall render therein its decision without awaiting for thefinal
decision of the courts or quasi-judicial body.3. Court of Appeals did not find any grave abuse of
discretion on thepart of the trial court, which based its denial of the demurrer on twogrounds:
first, the prosecution established a prima facie case forbigamy against the petitioner; and
second, peti
tioners allegations in
the demurrer were insufficient to justify the grant of the same.The denial for the motion to inhibit
was also correct. Mere suspicionthat a judge is partial is not enough. There should be clear
andconvincing evidence to prove the charge of bias and partiality.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi