Case Summary (G.R. No. 191566)
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
Primary penal provision: Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code (Bigamy). Procedural rules invoked: Rule 45 (petition for review on certiorari) and Rule 65 (special civil action for certiorari) of the Rules of Court; motion to quash standards under Rule 117. Constitutional basis: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date post‑1990).
Key Dates and Chronology
- July 2, 1980: Respondent married Jasmin Modina.
- October 28, 1993: Respondent contracted marriage with Eleanor A. Alagon.
- August 1994: Respondent filed a petition to annul his marriage to Modina.
- February 23, 1999: RTC of Pasig City, Branch 70, declared the marriage with Modina void ab initio for lack of a marriage license.
- June 2003: Private complainant learned of respondent’s prior marriage to Modina; November 10, 2003: Alagon died.
- April 15, 2005: Information for bigamy was filed against respondent.
- February 5, 2008: Respondent filed an omnibus motion seeking, among other reliefs, quashal of the Information.
- September 4, 2008 and February 20, 2009: RTC denied the omnibus motion and denied reconsideration.
- December 17, 2009: Court of Appeals granted respondent’s petition for certiorari and ordered the RTC to receive evidence on the motion to quash.
- Supreme Court disposition: petition for review on certiorari granted, CA decision set aside, case remanded to RTC Branch 27 (final disposition rendered by the Supreme Court).
Factual Background
Respondent was formally married to Modina in 1980 and later contracted a second marriage with Alagon in 1993. He had filed a petition for annulment of the first marriage (August 1994), and the Pasig RTC declared that first marriage void ab initio on February 23, 1999, due to absence of a marriage license. A criminal complaint for bigamy was filed later; an Information was filed on April 15, 2005, charging respondent with contracting a second marriage while legally married to Modina.
Criminal Information and Its Allegations
The Information alleged that on or about October 28, 1993, respondent, being legally married to Jasmin Modina and without such marriage having been legally dissolved, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously contracted a second or subsequent marriage with Eleanor A. Alagon, which second/subsequent marriage had all essential requisites for validity — conduct contrary to law under Article 349.
Grounds and Content of Respondent’s Motion to Quash
Respondent moved to quash the Information on two grounds: (1) that the facts as alleged do not charge the offense of bigamy; and (2) that criminal liability had been extinguished (relying on the prior judicial declaration that the first marriage was void ab initio). He asked permission to present evidence in support of the omnibus motion. The RTC denied the omnibus motion and subsequent reconsideration; respondent then petitioned the Court of Appeals for certiorari, which granted relief and directed the RTC to receive evidence on the motion to quash.
Court of Appeals Reasoning
The Court of Appeals applied the reasoning in Morigo v. People and concluded there was a cogent basis to look into respondent’s motion to quash: if evidence established that the first marriage was void ab initio, then an essential element of bigamy (existence of a valid prior marriage) would be lacking. The CA emphasized that respondent had filed the petition for nullity prior to contracting the second marriage and had obtained a favorable declaration before the filing of the bigamy complaint, making his situation even stronger than Morigo.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
Petitioner (People of the Philippines) advanced two principal arguments on review: (I) that the Information sufficiently alleged all elements of bigamy and thus was not subject to quashal on its face; and (II) that the subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage did not extinguish criminal liability that had already attached when the second marriage was contracted.
Standard for Motion to Quash and Relevant Procedural Law
The Supreme Court reiterated established law: a motion to quash challenges the sufficiency of the complaint or information on its face and proceeds on a hypothetical admission of the allegations therein. The determinative test is whether the facts, hypothetically admitted, establish the essential elements of the offense; matters extrinsic to the Information (evidence aliunde) and matters of defense are not to be considered at this stage. A motion to quash is properly granted only where defects are apparent on the face of the Information and cannot be corrected by amendment or other procedural measures.
Elements of Bigamy and Sufficiency of the Information
The Court enumerated the elements of Article 349 as: (1) that the offender had been legally married; (2) that the first marriage had not been legally dissolved (or that the absent spouse had not been declared presumptively dead); (3) that the offender contracted a second or subsequent marriage; and (4) that the subsequent marriage had all essential requisites for validity. The Information in this case explicitly alleged facts corresponding to each of these elements. On the hypothetical admission rule applicable to motions to quash, those allegations suffice on their face to charge bigamy.
On the Use of the Prior Nullity Decree in a Motion to Quash
The Supreme Court held that respondent’s attempt to introduce the Pasig RTC decree declaring the first marriage void ab initio amounted to introducing evidence contrary to the Information’s allegations — a matter of defense which cannot be resolved on a motion to quash. The court emphasized that it is improper to resolve such factual disputes at the outset without a full trial; the decree is evidence aliunde and thus not to be considered in determining facial sufficiency of the Information.
Precedent Considerations and Distinction from Morigo
While acknowledging Morigo v. People, where acquittal followed because the first marriage was judicially declared void for lack of a solemnizing officer, the Supreme Court emphasized that the Family Code and ensuing jurisprudence require an express judicial declaration of nullity as the exclusive avenue to establish absolute nullity for purposes such as allowing a subsequent valid marriage. Nevertheless, the Court disapproved allowing an accused to evade prosecution merely by filing a nullity petition and hoping for a favorable decision before any complaint is filed; criminal culpability attaches at the time the offense is
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 191566)
Facts of the Case
- Respondent Edgardo V. Odtuhan married Jasmin Modina on July 2, 1980 (Records, p. 8).
- Respondent contracted a second marriage with Eleanor A. Alagon on October 28, 1993 (Records, p. 7).
- Sometime in August 1994 respondent filed a petition for annulment of his marriage with Modina (Rollo, p. 144).
- On February 23, 1999, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 70, granted respondent’s petition and declared his marriage with Modina void ab initio for lack of a valid marriage license (Records, pp. 15–19).
- Private complainant Evelyn Abesamis Alagon learned of respondent’s prior marriage in June 2003 and filed a Complaint–Affidavit charging respondent with bigamy (Records, pp. 4–6; id. at 5).
- On April 15, 2005, respondent was indicted by Information for Bigamy alleging that on or about October 28, 1993, in the City of Manila, respondent being then legally married to Jasmin Modina and without such marriage having been legally dissolved, did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously contract a second marriage with Eleanor A. Alagon, the second marriage having all essential requisites for validity (Records, pp. 1–2; id. at 1).
Procedural History
- February 5, 2008: Respondent filed an Omnibus Motion seeking to present evidence, to quash the Information, and to dismiss the case; he argued (1) the facts do not charge bigamy and (2) criminal liability has been extinguished (Records, pp. 66–71; id. at 66).
- September 4, 2008: RTC, Branch 27, Manila denied respondent’s Omnibus Motion, holding the Information sufficiently alleged bigamy and that declaration of nullity of the first marriage is not a mode of extinguishing criminal liability (Order penned by Judge Teresa P. Soriaso; records, pp. 104–105).
- February 20, 2009: Trial court denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration (Records, pp. 121–122).
- 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 on the ground that his first marriage had been declared void ab initio prior to filing of the bigamy complaint (CA rollo, pp. 2–26; id. at 9).
- December 17, 2009: CA granted respondent’s petition for certiorari, ordering the RTC to give due course to and receive evidence on respondent’s motion to quash and to resolve the matter with dispatch (Rollo, p. 46).
- CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated March 4, 2010 (Rollo, pp. 48–49).
- Petitioner (People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General) filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 191566).
Question Presented / Issues
- Whether the Information charging respondent with bigamy sufficiently alleged all the essential elements of the offense under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.
- Whether the judicial declaration that respondent’s first marriage was void ab initio prior to filing of the bigamy complaint extinguished respondent’s criminal liability or otherwise warranted quashal of the Information.
Relevant Statutory Provision and Legal Standards
- Article 349, Revised Penal Code (Bigamy): Penalty for any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by judicial judgment (Art. 349 quoted).
- Motion to quash: Procedural device to assail validity of a criminal complaint or information for insufficiency on its face in point of law or for defects apparent on the face of the information; it assumes the truth of the facts alleged in the information and does not permit consideration of evidence aliunde or matters extrinsic to the information (definition drawn from Antone v. Beronilla and People v. Balao; Go v. The Fifth Division, Sandiganbayan).
- Fundamental test in a motion to quash: whether, upon hypothetical admission of the facts alleged in the Information, the essential elements of the crime are established; matters of defense and evidence contrary to allegations cannot be resolved in a motion to quash (People v. Balao; Antone v. Beronilla).
- Procedural rules governing motions to quash and amendment: Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 117, Sections 4–6 (as cited).
Allegations in the Information (as relevant to elements of bigamy)
- Alleged that respondent was legally married to Jasmin Modina (element 1).
- Alleged that such marriage had not been legally dissolved at the time of the second marriage (element 2).
- Alleged that respondent willfully, unlawfully and feloniously contracted a second marriage with Eleanor A. Alagon on October 28, 1993 (element 3).
- Alleged that the second marriage had all essential requisites for validity (element 4).
Trial Court (RTC) Ruling
- RTC denied respondent’s Omnibus Motion and motion to quash.
- RTC held that the allegations of a valid first marriage and an undissolved status plus the subsequent marriage established the crime of bigamy on the face of the Information.
- RTC held that declaration of nullity of the first marriage is not among the modes of extinguishing c