Case Digest (G.R. No. 183805)
Facts:
James Walter P. Capili v. People of the Philippines and Shirley Tismo-Capili, G.R. No. 183805, July 03, 2013, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner James Walter P. Capili was charged by the People on June 28, 2004 with the crime of bigamy before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City. The Information alleged that on December 8, 1999 Capili, already lawfully married to Karla Y. Medina-Capili (married September 3, 1999), contracted a second marriage with Shirley G. Tismo (private respondent) while the first marriage subsisted.
Petitioner moved in the RTC of Pasig to suspend proceedings and later filed a Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss, arguing that a civil action for declaration of nullity filed by Karla before the RTC of Antipolo City (Civil Case No. 01-6043) had resulted in a decision declaring the second marriage void, and that the pendency and eventual judgment in that civil case operated as a prejudicial question to the criminal prosecution. The arraignment and pre-trial were reset pending resolution of the motion.
The RTC of Antipolo City rendered a decision (dated December 1, 2004) declaring the second marriage void or incipiently invalid. Relying on that decision, the RTC of Pasig, in an Order dated July 7, 2006, granted petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss the bigamy charge on the ground that the second marriage had been nullified and “there is no more bigamy to speak of.”
The private prosecutor appealed the Pasig RTC’s dismissal to the Court of Appeals (CA). In a Decision dated February 1, 2008, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC’s Order and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings; a subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by CA Resolution dated July 24, 2008.
Petitioner then brought a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court, contesting the CA’...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the pendency and/or finality of the civil action for declaration of nullity of the second marriage operated as a prejudicial question warranting dismissal or suspension of the criminal prosecution for bigamy.
- Whether a subsequent judicial declaration that the second marriage is null and void bars prosecution for bigamy where the second marriage was contracted during the subsistence of a first marriage (i.e., whether the lat...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)