[ G.R. No. 255335. August 27, 2025 ] THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 255335. August 27, 2025 ]
MARIA VICTORIA NATIVIDAD-FLORENTINO, PETITIONER, VS. ANTONIO G. FLORENTINO, JR., RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 255636] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. ANTONIO G. FLORENTINO, JR., RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N
GAERLAN, J.:
Before the Court are separate Petitions for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by the People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), and by Maria Victoria Natividad-Florentino (Victoria). In both Petitions, the Amended Decision[2] dated July 3, 2019. and the Resolution[3] dated January 12, 2021, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 132689 are being assailed. At the center of controversy is the question of whether the pendency of a Petition for declaration of nullity of marriage constitutes a prejudicial question that would warrant the suspension of the criminal proceedings for bigamy against Antonio G. Florentino, Jr. (Antonio). Antonio entered into a marriage with Marilou Jarmin (Marilou) on May 18, 1984, solemnized by then Municipal Mayor of Sta. Rosa, Laguna, Cesar E. Nepomuceno. This first marriage is evidenced by a Marriage Contract (first marriage). Antonio, however, claims that the marriage ceremony never took place and that he and Marilou merely signed a Marriage Contract without solemnization. In support, Antonio presented the testimony of his childhood friend Pol Natividad (Pol), one of those who signed as witnesses in the Marriage Contract.[4] Thereafter, Marilou left for the United States of America and Antonio allegedly lost all contact with her. He avers that they never consummated the marriage, never lived together, and never registered their Marriage Contract with the civil registry.[5] Fifteen years later, Antonio sought to marry Victoria, an old acquaintance, and Pol’s sister. Believing he was free to marry, Antonio and Victoria married on November 8, 1999, solemnized by Hon. Cesar D. Santamaria, Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City (second marriage). They lived together as husband and wife.[6] In January 2011, Victoria verified Antonio’s marital status with the National Statistics Office (NSO). A Certification was issued by the NSO stating that Antonio had contracted two marriages: first with Marilou on May 18, 1984, in Sta. Rosa, Laguna, and second with Victoria on November 8, 1999 in Makati City.[7] Subsequently, Victoria left the conjugal home, asserting that Antonio had concealed his prior marriage from her. Antonio, on the other hand, maintains that Victoria knew of his previous marriage and that he had already explained that the first marriage was never registered.[8] On April 19, 2012, Antonio filed a petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Marriage against Marilou, docketed as Civil Case No. 12-327 before Branch 144 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. Shortly thereafter, on May 22, 2012, Victoria filed a criminal complaint for bigamy against Antonio. The criminal case for bigamy was docketed as Criminal Case No. 12-1476 and raffled to Branch 61 of the RTC of Makati City.[9] On September 24, 2013, Antonio filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings and Defer Arraignment in Criminal Case No. 12-1476, invoking the pendency of his Petition for Declaration of Nullity as a prejudicial question to the bigamy case.[10]
Ruling of the RTC
The RTC issued a Resolution dated November 23, 2012 denying Antonio’s motion as follows:
WHEREFORE, for sheer dearth of merit, the instant “Petition To Suspend Proceedings and Defer Arraignment” of the herein accused Antonio G. Florentino, Jr. (Mr. Florentino) is hereby DENIED.
Accordingly, let the arraignment of the accused herein be held on 28 January 2013 at eight-thirty o’clock in the morning. Serve copies of this Resolution to all concerned. SO ORDERED.[11] (Emphasis in the original) Antonio moved for reconsideration but was likewise denied. Hence, he filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA.[12]
Ruling of the CA
In a Decision[13] dated September 28, 2018, the CA ruled that the RTC correctly denied Antonio’s Motion to Suspend Proceedings and Defer Arraignment. The CA explained that the pendency of the civil action for declaration of nullity of marriage is not a ground to suspend the proceedings on the criminal case for bigamy.[14] Thus, the CA disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant “Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order” filed by petitioner Antonio G. Florentino, Jr. is hereby DENIED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.[15] (Emphasis in the original)
Undeterred, Antonio filed a Motion for Reconsideration, contending that a judicial declaration of nullity was unnecessary as the first marriage was void for lack of a solemnizing officer.[16] The CA found merit in this argument and reversed its earlier Decision, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the “Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision Dated 28 September 2018)” filed by petitioner Antonio G. Florentino, Jr. is GRANTED. Our September 28, 2018 Decision is RECALLED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure filed by petitioner is GRANTED. SO ORDERED.[17] (Emphasis in the original)
In its Amended Decision dated July 3, 2019, the CA ruled that (1) the absence of a solemnizing officer rendered the marriage void ab initio; and (2) that the pending petition for nullity constituted a prejudicial question warranting the suspension of the bigamy proceedings.[18] Aggrieved, the OSG and Victoria filed their respective Motions for Reconsideration. Both motions were denied by the CA in its Resolution dated January 12, 2021.[19] The OSG and Victoria filed their respective Petitions for Review on Certiorari, which were docketed as G.R. No. 255335[20] and G.R. No. 255636,[21] respectively. The Court then ordered the consolidation of the petitions. Pursuant to Resolution[22] dated September 28, 2022, Antonio filed his Comment.[23] Meanwhile, Victoria[24] and the OSG[25] filed their respective Replies.
Ruling of the Court
The Court resolves to partially grant the Petitions. Rule 111, Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure defines a prejudicial question thru its elements:
Section 7. Elements of prejudicial question. — The elements of a prejudicial question 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.
Accordingly, a prejudicial question arises when a civil action involves facts intimately related to those raised in a criminal case such that the resolution of the former is determinative of the latter. The rationale behind this principle is to avoid conflicting decisions between tribunals and to prevent the unnecessary burden of criminal prosecution when the resolution of a civil issue could render such prosecution moot. Procedurally, Rule 111, Section 6 of the Rules of Court provides the proper mechanism for invoking a prejudicial question:
Section 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. — A petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests.
Thus, upon proper determination that a prejudicial question exists, the trial court is duty-bound to suspend the criminal proceedings and await the final resolution of the related civil action. Not every civil action, however, gives rise to a prejudicial question. The existence of a civil case involving a similar issue does not automatically qualify as a prejudicial question. The law requires dependency—that is, the necessity that the civil case must first be resolved before the criminal case can proceed. Bigamy cases and petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage are clear examples. While the issues in both the civil case for declaration of nullity of marriage and the criminal case for bigamy are closely related—both dealing with the validity of the first marriage—they are not so intertwined as to be interdependent. A second marriage contracted while a prior valid marriage subsists renders the party criminally liable for bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides:
Art. 349. Bigamy. — The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings.
In any case, even if the validity of the first marriage is questioned, the criminal case for bigamy proceeds independently. The validity of the first marriage may be incidentally litigated as a defense in the criminal case, without the need to suspend the criminal proceedings pending the outcome of a civil action. In Pulido v. People,[26] the Court abandoned its earlier restnct1ve precedents and adopted a more liberal view. The Court ruled that a void ab initio marriage can be used as a defense in bigamy even without a separate judicial declaration of absolute nullity. Guided by the retroactive effects of a void ab initio marriage, the legislative intent of Article 40[27] of the Family Code, and the fundamental rules of construction governing penal laws, the Court made the following pronouncement:
After a careful consideration, this Court is constrained to abandon our earlier rulings that a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of the first and/or second marriages cannot be raised as a defense by the accused in a criminal prosecution for bigamy. We hold that a judicial declaration of absolute nullity is not necessary to prove a void ab initio prior and subsequent marriages in a bigamy case. Consequently, a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of the first and/or second marriages presented by the accused in the prosecution for bigamy is a valid defense, irrespective of the time within which they are secured.[28] (Emphasis in the original)
In effect, the parties are not required to obtain a judicial declaration of absolute nullity to raise it as a defense in a bigamy case. Also in Pulido, the Court clarified that the rule applies to all marriages celebrated under the Civil Code and the Family Code alike. With these, the Court affirmed that Article 40 of the Family Code did net amend Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, and hence, did not deny the accused the right to collaterally attack the validity of a void ab initio marriage in a criminal prosecution for bigamy. In other words, the accused in a criminal case for bigamy may assert during trial that the first marriage was void ab initio, therefore, no crime of bigamy was committed. Such defense, however, must be established through evidence in the criminal proceedings and shall be competently resolved by the trial cou1i without awaiting the resolution of a pending civil case for declaration of nullity. The criminal action for bigamy can proceed independently. Meanwhile, the existence of a pending civil action for declaration of nullity does not suspend the criminal case. Applying these principles to the case of Antonio, the alleged void ab initio character of his first marriage shall properly be raised as a defense, not as a bar to prosecution. All the more, the criminal action must proceed in order for the accused. Antonio, to substantiate his defense of nullity before the trial court. In resolving this, it is within the competence of the trial court to receive evidence and adjudicate on the matter of the validity of the first marriage. Consequently, the pendency of his civil action for declaration of nullity is rendered irrelevant to the continuation of the prosecution for bigamy. Allowing the mere filing of a petition for nullity to suspend criminal prosecution would create a dangerous precedent that would enable delay or evasion of liability simply by initiating civil proceedings. At the heart of these rules is a Constitutional and societal value: the inviolability of marriage. As enshrined in Article XV, Section 2 of the Constitution, “[m]arriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.” The Court must let the criminal case for bigamy proceed, for when the law is circumvented by delay, the very institution it seeks to protect is betrayed. Marriage must be undone by law, not by strategy. Justice, too, must not be postponed by pretense. In the face of an invoked defense, the courts—not a procedural detour—remain the proper forum for truth. ACCORDINGLY, the Petitions for Review on Certiorari are PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Amended Decision dated July 3, 2019 and the Resolution dated January 12, 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 132689 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Branch 61 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City is DIRECTED to proceed with dispatch with the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 12-1476 in accordance with law. SO ORDERED. Inting and Dimaampao, JJ., concur. Caguioa (Chairperson), J., see concurring opinion. Singh,* J., on leave.