G.R. No. 191566 - People vs. Odtuhan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 191566)

Factual Background

Edgardo V. Odtuhan contracted marriage with Jasmin Modina on July 2, 1980, and later contracted marriage with Eleanor A. Alagon on October 28, 1993. He filed a petition to annul his first marriage in August 1994. The RTC of Pasig, Branch 70, declared the marriage with Modina void ab initio on February 23, 1999 for lack of a valid marriage license. Private complainant Evelyn Abesamis Alagon learned of the prior marriage in June 2003, and an Information for Bigamy was later filed against Odtuhan, charging that he contracted a second marriage while the first subsisted.

Trial Court Proceedings

Edgardo V. Odtuhan filed an Omnibus Motion on February 5, 2008 seeking leave to present evidence, to quash the Information, and to dismiss the case on two grounds: that the facts did not charge bigamy and that his criminal liability had been extinguished by the prior judicial declaration of nullity. The RTC, Branch 27, Manila denied the Omnibus Motion by Order dated September 4, 2008 and denied reconsideration on February 20, 2009, holding that the allegations in the Information sufficiently pleaded bigamy and that a declaration of nullity was not a mode of extinguishing criminal liability.

Petition for Certiorari to the Court of Appeals

Aggrieved, Edgardo V. Odtuhan filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals, contesting the RTC’s denial of his motion to quash on the ground that his first marriage had been declared null and void ab initio prior to the filing of the bigamy complaint.

Court of Appeals' Ruling and Reasoning

The Court of Appeals granted the petition for certiorari in a decision dated December 17, 2009 and ordered the RTC to give due course to and receive evidence on the motion to quash. The CA relied principally on Morigo v. People, 466 Phil. 1013 (2004), reasoning that if the evidence established that the first marriage was void ab initio, one essential element of bigamy would be missing. The CA emphasized that Odtuhan had filed for annulment before contracting the second marriage and obtained a favorable declaration before the complaint for bigamy was filed; the CA concluded that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion to quash.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The People of the Philippines raised two principal issues in their Rule 45 petition: first, whether the Information sufficiently alleged the elements of bigamy under Art. 349, Revised Penal Code; and second, whether the subsequent judgment declaring the first marriage void ab initio extinguished criminal liability that allegedly had already attached prior to that judgment.

Legal Standards Governing Motions to Quash and Bigamy

The Court reiterated that a motion to quash attacks the face of the Information and assumes hypothetically the truth of its allegations; the sole inquiry is whether the averments, if admitted, establish the essential elements of the offense. The Court noted the settled elements of Art. 349: (1) that the offender has been legally married; (2) that the first marriage has not been legally dissolved or the absent spouse not presumptively dead; (3) that the offender contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and (4) that the second marriage has all essential requisites for validity. The Court stressed that matters of defense and evidence aliunde are not to be considered on a motion to quash and cited Rule 117, Sections 4 to 6, Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Supreme Court's Analysis on the Sufficiency of the Information

The Supreme Court found that the Information against Edgardo V. Odtuhan contained the necessary allegations corresponding to each element of Art. 349 and was therefore sufficient on its face. The Court held that the decree declaring the first marriage null and void ab initio presented by Odtuhan sought to prove a fact contrary to the allegations in the Information and thus constituted a matter of defense that could not be entertained in a motion to quash. The Court emphasized that it was improper to resolve guilt or extinguishment of liability at the preliminary stage without a full trial.

Supreme Court's Analysis on Timing of Criminal Liability and Extinguishment

The Court reaffirmed the rule that criminal culpability attaches at the moment the offense is committed and that liability continues unless and until extinguished by law. The time when a criminal complaint or Information is filed is material principally for prescription. The Court held that a judicial declaration of nullity rendered after the commission of the second marriage does not retroactively extinguish criminal liability for bigamy where the elements, as hypothetically admitted from the Information, are present at the time of the alleged offense. The Court cited Montanez v. Cipriano, Teves v. People, and Antone v. Beronilla in

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 191566)

Parties and Posture

People of the Philippines filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals decision and resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 108616.
Edgardo V. Odtuhan was the accused and the respondent in the Rule 45 petition who had sought relief via a certiorari petition under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals granted respondent's petition for certiorari and ordered the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Manila, to give due course to and receive evidence on respondent's motion to quash.
The Supreme Court reviewed the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution and rendered judgment on the petition for review under Rule 45.

Key Factual Allegations

Edgardo V. Odtuhan contracted a first marriage with Jasmin Modina on July 2, 1980.
Edgardo V. Odtuhan contracted a second marriage with Eleanor A. Alagon on October 28, 1993.
Respondent filed a petition for annulment of his marriage with Modina in August 1994 and the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 70, declared that marriage void ab initio for lack of a marriage license on February 23, 1999.
Private complainant Evelyn Abesamis Alagon learned of respondent's prior marriage in June 2003 and a Complaint-Affidavit was filed thereafter.
An Information for Bigamy was filed against respondent on April 15, 2005 alleging he contracted a second marriage despite being legally married to Modina.
Respondent filed an Omnibus Motion on February 5, 2008 seeking to present evidence and to quash the Information on the grounds that the facts do not charge bigamy and that criminal liability had been extinguished.
The RTC, Branch 27, Manila, denied respondent's Omnibus Motion by Order dated September 4, 2008, and denied reconsideration on February 20, 2009.

Procedural History

Respondent elevated the RTC denial by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 108616.
The Court of Appeals rendered its decision on December 17, 2009 granting respondent's petition for certiorari and directing the RTC to receive evidence on the motion to quash.
The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by resolution dated March 4, 2010.
People of the Philippines filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, which ultimately reviewed and decided the case.

Issues Presented

Whether the Information filed against respondent sufficiently alleged the elements of bigamy under Art. 349 of the Revised Penal Code.
Whether the judicial declaration that respondent's first marriage was null and void ab initio extinguished respondent's criminal liability for bigamy when that declaration was obtained prior to the filing of the bigamy complaint.

Contentions of the Parties

The People of the Philippines contended that the Information sufficiently alleged all essential elements of Art. 349 and that a subsequent judicial declaration of nullity did not extinguish criminal liability that had already attached.
Edgardo V. Odtuhan contended that the declaration that his first marriage was void ab initio eliminated an essential element of bigamy and that his criminal liability was extinguished because the nullity decree was obtained before the filing of the bigamy complaint.
The Court of Appeals relied on Morigo v. People and agreed with respondent that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in