Case Digest (G.R. No. 191566)
Facts:
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 191566, July 17, 2013, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner is the People of the Philippines (represented by the Office of the Solicitor General); the respondent is Edgardo V. Odtuhan, charged with the crime of bigamy. Respondent married Jasmin Modina on July 2, 1980, and later contracted a marriage with Eleanor A. Alagon on October 28, 1993. Sometime in August 1994 respondent filed a petition for annulment of his marriage to Modina; on February 23, 1999 the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 70 declared that marriage void ab initio for lack of a valid marriage license.
Private complainant Evelyn Abesamis Alagon learned of respondent’s prior marriage in June 2003 and filed a Complaint‑Affidavit charging respondent with bigamy; an Information was filed on April 15, 2005 alleging that respondent, being legally married to Modina and without such marriage having been dissolved, contracted a second marriage with Alagon on October 28, 1993. Respondent filed an Omnibus Motion on February 5, 2008 seeking to present evidence, to quash the Information, and to dismiss the case on two grounds: (1) the facts do not charge bigamy; and (2) criminal liability had been extinguished.
The Regional Trial Court (Branch 27, Manila) denied the Omnibus Motion in an order dated September 4, 2008 and denied reconsideration on February 20, 2009, holding that the Information on its face properly alleged the elements of bigamy and that a declaration of nullity is not a mode of extinguishing criminal liability. Respondent then filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which granted the petition in a December 17, 2009 decision and ordered the RTC “to give due course to and receive evidence on the petitioner’s motion to quash,” reasoning that if evidence established the first marriage was void ab initio an essential element of bigamy would be lacking. The CA denied reconsideration on March 4, 2010.
The People filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court, assailing the CA’s grant of certiorari on the grounds that (I) the Information sufficiently alleged all elements of bigamy; and (II) the subsequent court judgment declaring respondent’s fir...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Information charging respondent with bigamy sufficiently allege the elements of the offense so that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in denying the motion to quash?
- Does a subsequent judicial declaration that the first marriage is void ab initio extinguish an already‑attached crimina...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)