Title
Capili vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 183805
Decision Date
Jul 3, 2013
A man charged with bigamy sought dismissal after his second marriage was declared null; the Supreme Court ruled that the crime was consummated upon the second marriage, and subsequent nullity does not absolve liability.
bigamy
subsequent declaration of nullity
criminal case

Case Summary (G.R. No. 224302)

Factual Background

The petitioner contracted a first marriage to Karla Y. Medina-Capili on September 3, 1999. A second marriage between the petitioner and private respondent was celebrated on December 8, 1999. On June 28, 2004, the petitioner was charged by Information with the crime of bigamy before the RTC of Pasig City. The petitioner thereafter invoked the pendency of a civil case filed by his legal wife in the RTC of Antipolo for declaration of nullity of the second marriage, and he moved to suspend criminal proceedings and later to dismiss the criminal case following the RTC of Antipolo's decision declaring the second marriage void or incipiently invalid.

Trial Court Proceedings

The petitioner filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings on the ground that a civil action for declaration of nullity involving the same marriages was pending in the RTC of Antipolo and that a favorable civil determination would exculpate him from criminal liability. The RTC of Pasig City reset arraignment and pretrial. The RTC of Antipolo rendered a decision on December 1, 2004 declaring the second marriage null. Relying on that decision, the petitioner filed a Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss in the criminal case. In an Order dated July 7, 2006, the RTC of Pasig granted the Motion to Dismiss, holding that the second marriage had been nullified by the Antipolo court and concluding that "there is no more bigamy to speak of."

Court of Appeals Proceedings

Aggrieved, private respondent appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals. In a Decision dated February 1, 2008, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the RTC's Order of July 7, 2006 and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The petitioner moved for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied in a Resolution dated July 24, 2008.

Issue Presented

The central legal issue is whether a subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the second marriage provides a ground for dismissal of a criminal prosecution for bigamy when the second marriage was contracted during the subsistence of a prior marriage.

Petitioner’s Contentions

The petitioner contended that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court because the RTC of Antipolo had already declared the second marriage null and void and that such final civil judgment should bar the criminal prosecution. The petitioner argued that existing jurisprudence and the dispositive findings of the Antipolo decision supported dismissal and alleged that the Court of Appeals' ruling violated Art. VIII, Sec. 14, 1987 Constitution. The petitioner further asserted, among other points, that the use by private respondent of the surname "Capili" was illegal after the Antipolo decision became final and was duly recorded.

Respondent’s Position and Procedural Posture

The record reflects that the People opposed dismissal and defended the continuation of criminal proceedings. The People maintained that the essential elements of Article 349, Revised Penal Code were present at the time the second marriage was contracted and that a subsequent civil determination declaring a marriage null does not erase criminal liability already incurred at the time of the celebratory act.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari and affirmed the Decision dated February 1, 2008 and the Resolution dated July 24, 2008 of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the finality of the judicial declaration of nullity of the second marriage does not bar prosecution for bigamy where the first marriage was subsisting at the time the second marriage was contracted.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court began with the statutory definition and elements of Article 349, Revised Penal Code. The elements are: one, the offender has been legally married; two, the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, if the spouse is absent, the spouse has not been judicially declared presumptively dead; three, the offender contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and four, the subsequent marriage has the essential requisites for validity. The Court found these elements satisfied because the second marriage was contracted on December 8, 1999 during the subsistence of a valid first marriage contracted on September 3, 1999. The Court reiterated controlling jurisprudence that the consummation of the crime of bigamy occurs upon celebration of the second marriage while the prior marriage still subsists. The Court cited Jarillo v. People, G.R. No. 164435, September 29, 2009, for the principle that a subsequent judicial declaration of nullity is immaterial to the criminality already consummated at the time of the celebratory act. The Court observed that permitting accused persons to invoke pending civil nullity actions as prejudicial questions would unduly delay criminal prosecutions and enable accuseds to frustrate enforcement of the penal law. The Court also relied on the settled principle that a marriage is presumed valid until a competent court decla

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms