Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 155 views

    Digest - Pimentel Vs Pimentel

    Uploaded by

    japinx
    The Supreme Court ruled that the resolution of the civil case for annulment of marriage would not be a prejudicial question that warrants suspending the criminal case for frustrated parricide. The elements of a prejudicial question were not met as the civil case was filed after the criminal case and resolving it would not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. While the relationship between the offender and victim is relevant to parricide, the issue in the annulment case of whether the petitioner was psychologically incapacitated differs from whether he attempted to kill the respondent. Resolving the annulment petition would not impact the criminal case as the alleged crime was committed when they were still married.

    Copyright:

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

    Digest - Pimentel Vs Pimentel

    Uploaded by

    japinx
    155 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the resolution of the civil case for annulment of marriage would not be a prejudicial question that warrants suspending the criminal case for frustrated parricide. The elements of a prejudicial question were not met as the civil case was filed after the criminal case and resolving it would not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. While the relationship between the offender and victim is relevant to parricide, the issue in the annulment case of whether the petitioner was psychologically incapacitated differs from whether he attempted to kill the respondent. Resolving the annulment petition would not impact the criminal case as the alleged crime was committed when they were still married.

    Original Title

    Digest- Pimentel vs Pimentel.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 Supreme Court ruled that the resolution of the civil case for annulment of marriage would not be a prejudicial question that warrants suspending the criminal case for frustrated parricide. The elements of a prejudicial question were not met as the civil case was filed after the criminal case and resolving it would not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. While the relationship between the offender and victim is relevant to parricide, the issue in the annulment case of whether the petitioner was psychologically incapacitated differs from whether he attempted to kill the respondent. Resolving the annulment petition would not impact the criminal case as the alleged crime was committed when they were still married.

    Copyright:

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

    Digest - Pimentel Vs Pimentel

    Uploaded by

    japinx
    The Supreme Court ruled that the resolution of the civil case for annulment of marriage would not be a prejudicial question that warrants suspending the criminal case for frustrated parricide. The elements of a prejudicial question were not met as the civil case was filed after the criminal case and resolving it would not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. While the relationship between the offender and victim is relevant to parricide, the issue in the annulment case of whether the petitioner was psychologically incapacitated differs from whether he attempted to kill the respondent. Resolving the annulment petition would not impact the criminal case as the alleged crime was committed when they were still married.

    Copyright:

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

    Joselito Pimentel vs Maria L.

    Pimentel
    G.R. No. 172060, 13 September 2010
    Carpio, J.:

    FACTS:
    Respondent, Maria Chrysantine Pimentel, filed an action for frustrated parricide against petitioner, Joselito R. Pimentel.
    The Information for Frustrated Parricide was dated 30 August 2004 and was raffled to RTC Quezon City on 25 October
    2004.
    She also filed on 5 November 2004, a petition, dated 4 November 2004, for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under
    Section 36 of the Family Code on the ground of psychological incapacity.
    Petitioner received summons to appear before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City on 7 February 2005, for the pre-
    trial and trial of the Civil Case.
    He then filed an urgent motion to suspend the proceedings before the RTC Quezon City on the ground of the existence
    of a prejudicial question asserting that the relationship between the offender and the victim is a key element in parricide,
    the outcome of Civil Case would have a bearing in the criminal case filed against him before the RTC Quezon City.

    The RTC Quezon City held that the pendency of the case before the RTC Antipolo is not a prejudicial question that
    warrants the suspension of the criminal case before it. The Court of Appeals also denied the petition holding that the
    issue in the criminal case for frustrated parricide differs from the issue in the civil action for annulment of marriage. It
    ruled that even if the marriage between petitioner and respondent would be declared void, it would be
    immaterial to the criminal case because prior to the declaration of nullity, the alleged acts constituting the crime
    of frustrated parricide had already been committed. At the time of the commission of the crime, the marriage is
    still subsisting.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the resolution of the action for annulment of marriage is a prejudicial question that warrants the
    suspension of the criminal case for frustrated parricide.

    HELD:
    The elements of a prejudicial question under Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, which are:
    (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent
    criminal action and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed, were not
    met.

    Civil action must be instituted first before the filing of the criminal action. In this case, the civil case for annulment was
    filed after the filing of the criminal case for frustrated parricide. 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 exists in the civil
    action an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed because
    howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the
    accused in the criminal case.

    The relationship between the offender and the victim is a key element in the crime of parricide. However, the issue in
    the annulment of marriage is not similar or intimately related to the issue in the criminal case for parricide.
    Further, the relationship between the offender and the victim is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the
    accused. The issue in the civil case for annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code is whether petitioner
    is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. The issue in parricide is whether the
    accused killed the victim. In this case, since petitioner was charged with frustrated parricide, the issue is whether he
    performed all the acts of execution which would have killed respondent as a consequence but which,
    nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of petitioner’s will. At the time of the commission of
    the alleged crime, petitioner and respondent were married. The subsequent dissolution of their marriage, in case
    the petition in 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 petitioner and respondent is annulled,
    petitioner could still be held criminally liable since at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, he was
    still married to respondent

    You might also like