MERARDO L. ZAPANTA, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for prohibition filed by Merardo L. Zapanta
against the Hon. Agustin P. Montesa, Judge of the Court of First
Instance of Bulacan, Fernando A. Cruz, Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan,
and Olimpia A. Yco, to enjoin the former from proceeding with the trial
of Criminal Case No. 3405 pending the final determination of Civil Case
No. 1446 of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga.

Upon complaint filed by respondent Olimpia A. Yco on May 20, 1958,
an information for Bigamy was filed by respondent Provincial Fiscal
against petitioner in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan (Criminal
Case No. 3405), alleging that the latter, having previously married one
Estrella Guarin, and without said marriage having been dissolved,
contracted a second marriage with said complainant.

On June 16, 1958, petitioner filed in the Court of First Instance of
Pampanga Civil Case No. 1446 against respondent Olimpia A. Yco for the
annulment of their marriage on the ground of duress, force and
intimidation. On the 30th of the same month respondent Yco, as
defendant in said case, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint upon
the ground that it stated no cause of action, but the same was denied
on July 7 of the same year.

On September 2, 1958, petitioner, in turn, filed a motion in
Criminal Case No. 3405 to suspend proceedings therein, on the ground
that the determination of the issue involved in Civil Case No. 1446 of
the Court of First Instance of Pampanga was a prejudicial question.
Respondent judge denied the motion on September 20, 1958 as well as
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, and ordered his arraignment.
After entering a plea of not guilty, petitioner filed the present
action.

We have heretofore defined a prejudicial question as that which
arises in a case, the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of
the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to
another tribunal (People vs. Aragon, 94 Phil., 357; 50 Off.
Gaz., [10] 4863). The prejudicial question—we further said— must be
determinative of the case before the court, and jurisdiction to try the
same must be lodged in another court (People vs. Aragon, supra).
These requisites are present in the case at bar. Should the question
for annulment of the second marriage pending in the Court of First
Instance of Pampanga prosper on the ground that, according to the
evidence, petitioner’s consent thereto was obtained by means of duress,
force and intimidation, it is obvious that his act was involuntary and
can not be the basis of his conviction for the crime of bigamy with
which he was charged in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. Thus
the issue involved in the action for the annulment of the second
marriage is determinative of petitioner’s guilt or innocence of the
crime of bigamy. On the other hand, there can be no question that the
annulment of petitioner’s marriage with respondent Yco on the grounds
relied upon in the complaint filed in the Court of First Instance of
Pampanga is within the jurisdiction of said court.

In the Aragon case already mentioned (supra) we held that
if the defendant in a case for bigamy claims that the first marriage is
void and the right to decide such validity is vested in another court,
the civil action for annulment must first be decided before the action
for bigamy can proceed. There is no reason not to apply the same rule
when the contention of the accused is that the second marriage is void
on the ground that he entered into it because of duress, force and
intimidation.

Wherefore, the writ prayed for in the petition is hereby granted. Without costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, and De Leon, JJ., concur.