Bobis v.

Bobis
Digest by: Tey Gabay
Topic: Bigamous marriages (Article 40)
Petitioner: Imelda Marbella-Bobis
Respondent: Isagani D. Bobis
Ponent: J. Ynares-Santiago
Facts:
Respondent (Isagani) contracted a first marriage with Maria Dulce B. Javier. Without annulling the first
marriage, he married petitioner (Imelda.) He married again for the third time with a certain Julia Sally
Hernandez. Petitioner then filed bigamy against the respondent in the RTC of Quezon City. Respondent
initiated a civil action for nullity of his first marriage because of absence of marriage license. He then filed
a motion for suspension of the criminal proceedings for bigamy which was then granted. Hence, this
petition for review on certiorari. Petitioner argues that respondent should have first obtained a judicial
declaration of nullity of his first marriage before marrying again.
Issue: Whether the subsequent filing of a civil action for declaration of nullity of a previous marriage
constitutes a prejudicial question to a criminal case for bigamy. (Restated: whether it is right to suspend
the case for bigamy due to the civil action for the nullification of first marriage.)
Held:
No. The petition was granted and the suspension of the lower court was reversed and the trial court is
ordered to immediately proceed with Criminal Case for Bigamy against respondent.
Ratio:
A prejudicial question is one which is raised so that the resolution of which would affect the merits of the
criminal charge. The two essential elements of a prejudicial question are: (1) the civil action involves an
issue similar of intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and (2) the resolution of such
issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.
The criminal action in this case is bigamy. Bigamy can successfully be prosecuted provided all its elements
concur which includes a previous marriage and a subsequent marriage. Article 40 requires a prior judicial
declaration of nullity of a precious marriage before a party may remarry. Due to this, the respondent for
all intents and purposes was regarded as a married man when he contracted his second marriage. Any
decision in the civil action for nullity would not erase the fact that respondent entered into a secnd
marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage. The second element of prejudicial question, therefore,
is not complied with.
Lastly, respondents clear intent is to obtain a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage and
thereafter invoke that very same judgment to prevent his prosecution for bigamy. Hence, the criminal
case for bigamy should not be suspended due to the civil action.