PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES vs. EDGARDO V. ODTUHAN | G.R. No. 191566 | July 17 !

"1#
DO$TRINE% A declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage is explicitly required either as a cause of
action or a ground for defense. It has been held that a judicial declaration of nullity is required before a
valid subsequent marriage can be contracted; or else, what transpires is a bigamous marriage,
reprehensible and immoral.
FA$TS%
On uly !, "#$%, &dgardo married asmin 'odina ('odina). On October !$, "##*, respondent
married &leanor A. Alagon (Alagon). Alagon died on +ovember "%, !%%*.
In August "##,, &dgardo filed a petition for annulment of his marriage with 'odina. On -ebruary !*,
"###, the ./0 of 1asig 0ity granted &dgardo2s petition and declared his marriage with 'odina void
ab initio for lac3 of a valid marriage license.
In une !%%*, private complainant &velyn Abesamis Alagon learned of &dgardo2s previous marriage
with 'odina and so she filed a 0omplaint4Affidavit charging respondent with 5igamy and &dgardo
was indicted in an Information for 5igamy.
On -ebruary 6, !%%$, respondent moved for the quashal of the Information on two grounds7 (") that
the facts do not charge the offense of bigamy; and (!) that the criminal action or liability has been
extinguished.
/he ./0 denied respondent2s 'otion and held that the facts alleged in the information constitute the
crime of bigamy. -urther, the trial court held that neither can the information be quashed on the
ground that criminal liability has been extinguished, because the declaration of nullity of the first
marriage is not one of the modes of extinguishing criminal liability. .espondent2s motion for
reconsideration was li3ewise denied.
&dgardo instituted a special civil action on certiorari under .ule 86 before the 0A, assailing the denial
of his motion to quash the information despite the fact that his first marriage with 'odina was
declared null and void ab initio prior to the filing of the bigamy case.
/he 0A granted &dgardo2s petition. 0iting the case of 'origo v. 1eople and held that there is cogent
basis in loo3ing into the motion to quash filed by respondent, for if the evidence would establish that
his first marriage was indeed void ab initio, one essential element of the crime of bigamy would be
lac3ing.
ISSUE7 9oes the declaration of the first marriage as void ab initio extinguished respondent2s criminal
liability which already attached prior to said judgment: ; NO
RULING7
0iting precedents, the 0ourt ruled that a declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage is explicitly
required either as a cause of action or a ground for defense. It has been held in a number of cases that a
judicial declaration of nullity is required before a valid subsequent marriage can be contracted; or else,
what transpires is a bigamous marriage, reprehensible and immoral.
An examination of the information filed against respondent shows the sufficiency of the allegations therein
to constitute the crime of bigamy as it contained all the elements of the crime. /he information contained
the following allegations7 (") that respondent is legally married to 'odina; (!) that without such marriage
having been legally dissolved; (*) that respondent willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously contracted a second
marriage with Alagon; and (,) that the second marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.
/he 0ourt in this case did not allow the presentation of evidence to support &dgardo2s motion to quash
because matters of defense cannot be raised in a motion to quash. /he court held that it is not proper to
resolve the charges at the very outset without the benefit of a full blown trial. /he issues require a fuller
examination and it would be unfair to shut off the prosecution at this stage of the proceedings and to
quash the information on the basis of the document presented by respondent. <ith the presentation of
the court decree, no facts have been brought out which destroyed the prima facie truth accorded to the
allegations of the information on the hypothetical admission thereof.
<hat ma3es a person criminally liable for bigamy is when he contracts a second or subsequent marriage
during the subsistence of a valid marriage. 1arties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for
themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted to the judgment of competent courts and only when
the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is no such
declaration, the presumption is that the marriage exists. /herefore, he who contracts a second marriage
before the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the ris3 of being prosecuted for
bigamy.
.espondent claims that there are more reasons to quash the information against him, because he
obtained the declaration of nullity of marriage before the filing of the complaint for bigamy against him.
/he 0ourt did not sustain the contention. 0riminal culpability attaches to the offender upon the
commission of the offense and from that instant, liability appends to him until extinguished as provided by
law and that the time of filing of the criminal complaint or information is material only for determining
prescription.