Case Digest (G.R. No. 191566)
Facts:
People of the Philippines (Petitioner) charged Edgardo V. Odtuhan (Respondent) with bigamy after he allegedly contracted a second marriage to Eleanor A. Alagon on October 28, 1993 while still married to Jasmin Modina (married July 2, 1980). Respondent had earlier filed for annulment of his marriage to Modina in August 1994 and the RTC of Pasig declared that marriage void ab initio on February 23, 1999; an Information for bigamy was filed on April 15, 2005, respondent moved to quash, the RTC denied the motion to quash on September 4, 2008, the Court of Appeals granted certiorari and ordered reception of evidence on December 17, 2009, and the Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the CA decision, and remanded the case on July 17, 2013.Issues:
- Does the Information sufficiently allege the elements of the crime of bigamy under Art. 349?
- Does a subsequent judicial declaration that the first marriage is void ab initio extinguish criminal liability for bigamy when the decla
Case Digest (G.R. No. 191566)
Facts:
- Parties and principal events
- People of the Philippines as Petitioner and Edgardo V. Odtuhan as Respondent.
- Respondent married Jasmin Modina on July 2, 1980.
- Respondent married Eleanor A. Alagon on October 28, 1993.
- Respondent filed a petition for annulment of his marriage with Modina sometime in August 1994.
- The RTC of Pasig City, Branch 70 granted the annulment on February 23, 1999 and declared the marriage void ab initio for lack of a valid marriage license.
- Eleanor A. Alagon died on November 10, 2003.
- Private complainant Evelyn Abesamis Alagon learned of respondent’s previous marriage in June 2003 and filed a Complaint-Affidavit charging bigamy.
- Criminal information and pretrial motions
- An Information for Bigamy was filed on April 15, 2005 alleging that on or about October 28, 1993 respondent, being legally married to Modina and without such marriage having been dissolved, contracted a second marriage with Alagon.
- On February 5, 2008 respondent filed an Omnibus Motion seeking leave to present evidence, moving to quash the Information on the grounds that (a) the facts do not charge bigamy and (b) criminal liability has been extinguished.
- The RTC, 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 sufficiently alleged bigamy and that declaration of nullity is not a mode of extinguishing criminal liability.
- Proceeding in the Court of Appeals
- Respondent filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the RTC’s denial of the motion to quash.
- The CA rendered a Decision dated December 17, 2009 granting the petition and ordering the RTC to give due course to and receive evidence on the motion to quash and resolve the case with dispatch.
- The CA relied on Morigo v. People, 466 Phil. 1013 (2004), and reasoned that if evidence proves the first marriage void ab initio one essential element of bigamy would be lacking.
- The CA further stated that respondent was in a comparatively better position than the accused in *Morigo* because respondent obtained a declaration of nullity...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Sufficiency of the Information to charge bigamy under Art. 349 of the Revised Penal Code
- Whether the Information, on its face and under hypothetical admission of its allegations, alleged all essential elements of bigamy.
- Effect of judicial declaration of nullity on criminal liability for bigamy
- Whether a judicial declaration that the first marriage is null and void ab initio extinguishes criminal liability for bigamy when the declaration is obtained before the filing of the criminal complaint but after the commission of the alleged second marriage.
- Whether the declaration of nullity may be considered in a motion to quash as a matter of defense.
- Proper scope and relief in a motion to...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)