People v. Odtuhan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Edgardo V. Odtuhan married Jasmin Modina on July 2, 1980. Subsequently, on October 28, 1993, while his marriage to Modina was still subsisting, he married Eleanor A. Alagon. In August 1994, Odtuhan filed a petition to annul his marriage with Modina, which was granted on February 23, 1999, declaring the marriage void ab initio due to the absence of a valid marriage license. After Alagon's death in November 2003, Evelyn Abesamis Alagon, upon learning of Odtuhan's prior marriage to Modina, filed a complaint for Bigamy against him. Procedural History: An Information for Bigamy was filed against respondent Odtuhan on April 15, 2005. On February 5, 2008, Odtuhan filed an Omnibus Motion to quash the information, arguing that the facts did not constitute bigamy and that his criminal liability had been extinguished due to the nullity of his first marriage. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 27, denied this motion on September 4, 2008, and subsequently denied his motion for reconsideration on February 20, 2009. Aggrieved, Odtuhan filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which granted his petition on December 17, 2009, ordering the RTC to give due course to his motion to quash and receive evidence. The CA denied the People's motion for reconsideration on March 4, 2010. The Petition: The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. The petitioner argues that the information sufficiently alleges all the elements of bigamy and that the subsequent declaration of nullity of the respondent's first marriage did not extinguish his criminal liability, which had already attached prior to the declaration. The petitioner contends that the CA erred in granting the certiorari petition and that the RTC correctly denied the motion to quash, as matters of defense, such as the nullity of the first marriage, cannot be raised in a motion to quash but must be proven during trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the information charging respondent with bigamy sufficiently alleges all the elements constituting said offense. Whether the subsequent court judgment declaring respondent's first marriage void ab initio extinguished respondent's criminal liability which already attached prior to said judgment.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Court of Appeals erred in granting the petition for certiorari filed by respondent. The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying his motion to quash and to allow him to present evidence to support his omnibus motion. The assailed CA decision and resolution are set aside, and the case is remanded to the RTC for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of the Information: The information filed against respondent sufficiently alleged all the elements of bigamy as defined under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. These elements are: (1) that the offender has been legally married; (2) that the first marriage has not been legally dissolved or the absent spouse cannot be presumed dead; (3) that the offender contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and (4) that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. The information explicitly stated that respondent was legally married to Modina, that this marriage was not legally dissolved, that he contracted a second marriage with Alagon, and that the second marriage had all essential requisites for validity. Respondent's evidence of the nullity of the first marriage is extrinsic to the information and cannot be considered in a motion to quash, as it seeks to establish a fact contrary to the allegations in the information, which are hypothetically admitted. Matters of defense cannot be raised in a motion to quash; they require a full-blown trial for proper determination. The information, on its face, is sufficient. On the extinguishment of criminal liability: The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage does not extinguish the criminal liability for bigamy. Criminal liability for bigamy attaches at the moment the second marriage is contracted during the subsistence of a valid first marriage. The offense is committed at that point, and subsequent events, such as a declaration of nullity of the first marriage, do not retroactively erase the criminal act. The Family Code requires a judicial declaration of nullity before a subsequent valid marriage can be contracted; otherwise, the subsequent marriage is considered bigamous. Parties cannot be permitted to judge the nullity of their own marriages; this must be determined by a competent court. Therefore, contracting a second marriage before a judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage carries the risk of prosecution for bigamy. The ruling in Morigo v. People, relied upon by the CA, is distinguished because in that case, the declaration of nullity was obtained before the filing of the bigamy case, and the Court considered the effect of the declaration retroactively. However, the prevailing jurisprudence, as clarified by the Family Code and subsequent cases like Antone v. Beronilla, holds that the offense is committed at the time of the second marriage, and a subsequent declaration of nullity does not absolve the offender from criminal liability for bigamy. The time of filing the criminal complaint or information is material only for determining prescription, not for the attachment of criminal culpability.
Main Doctrine
A subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of a prior marriage does not extinguish criminal liability for bigamy if the second marriage was contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage and before the declaration of nullity. The offense of bigamy is committed at the time of the celebration of the second marriage.