Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 42 views

    PEOPLE v. EDGARDO V. ODTUHAN

    Uploaded by

    Candelaria Quezon
    1) The respondent was married to Jasmin Modina in 1980 and married Eleanor Alagon in 1993. In 1994, he filed for annulment of his marriage to Modina. 2) In 1999, a court declared his marriage to Modina void ab initio. However, in 2003 he was charged with bigamy after Alagon died and her relative learned of his previous marriage. 3) The respondent argued the bigamy charge should be dismissed since his first marriage was declared void. However, the court ruled that the subsequent annulment did not extinguish his criminal liability for bigamy, which attached when he married Alagon while still married to Modina.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PEOPLE v. EDGARDO V. ODTUHAN

    Uploaded by

    Candelaria Quezon
    42 views2 pages
    1) The respondent was married to Jasmin Modina in 1980 and married Eleanor Alagon in 1993. In 1994, he filed for annulment of his marriage to Modina. 2) In 1999, a court declared his marriage to Modina void ab initio. However, in 2003 he was charged with bigamy after Alagon died and her relative learned of his previous marriage. 3) The respondent argued the bigamy charge should be dismissed since his first marriage was declared void. However, the court ruled that the subsequent annulment did not extinguish his criminal liability for bigamy, which attached when he married Alagon while still married to Modina.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The respondent was married to Jasmin Modina in 1980 and married Eleanor Alagon in 1993. In 1994, he filed for annulment of his marriage to Modina. 2) In 1999, a court declared his marriage to Modina void ab initio. However, in 2003 he was charged with bigamy after Alagon died and her relative learned of his previous marriage. 3) The respondent argued the bigamy charge should be dismissed since his first marriage was declared void. However, the court ruled that the subsequent annulment did not extinguish his criminal liability for bigamy, which attached when he married Alagon while still married to Modina.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    42 views2 pages

    PEOPLE v. EDGARDO V. ODTUHAN

    Uploaded by

    Candelaria Quezon
    1) The respondent was married to Jasmin Modina in 1980 and married Eleanor Alagon in 1993. In 1994, he filed for annulment of his marriage to Modina. 2) In 1999, a court declared his marriage to Modina void ab initio. However, in 2003 he was charged with bigamy after Alagon died and her relative learned of his previous marriage. 3) The respondent argued the bigamy charge should be dismissed since his first marriage was declared void. However, the court ruled that the subsequent annulment did not extinguish his criminal liability for bigamy, which attached when he married Alagon while still married to Modina.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    PEOPLE v. EDGARDO V. ODTUHAN, GR No.

    191566, 2013-07-17
    Facts:
    On July 2, 1980, respondent married Jasmin Modina (Modina).
    On October 28, 1993, respondent married Eleanor A. Alagon (Alagon).
    in August 1994, he filed a petition for annulment of his marriage with
    Modina.
    On February 23, 1999, the 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.
    November 10, 2003,... Alagon died
    June 2003, private complainant Evelyn Abesamis Alagon learned of respondent's previous
    marriage with Modina.[7] She thus filed a Complaint-Affidavit[8] charging respondent with
    Bigamy.
    On February 5, 2008, respondent filed an Omnibus Motion[11] praying that he be allowed to
    present evidence to support his motion; that his motion to quash be granted; and that the
    case be dismissed. Respondent moved for the quashal of the information... on two
    grounds, to wit: (1) that the facts do not charge the offense of bigamy; and (2) that the
    criminal action or liability has been extinguished
    Aggrieved, respondent instituted a special civil action on certiorari under Rule 65 of the
    Rules of Court[16] before the CA, assailing the denial of his motion to quash the information
    despite the fact that his first marriage with Modina was declared... null and void ab initio
    prior to the filing of the bigamy case... petitioner filed a petition before the Court in this
    petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court based on the following
    grounds
    Issues:
    THE SUBSEQUENT COURT JUDGMENT DECLARING RESPONDENT'S FIRST
    MARRIAGE VOID AB INITIO DID NOT EXTINGUISH RESPONDENT'S CRIMINAL
    LIABILITY WHICH ALREADY ATTACHED PRIOR TO SAID JUDGMENT.
    Ruling:
    On September 4, 2008, the RTC[13] issued an Order[14] denying respondent's Omnibus
    Motion
    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby GRANTED.
    The RTC, Branch 27, Manila is hereby ordered to give due course to and receive evidence
    on the petitioner's motion to quash and resolve the case with dispatch.
    SO ORDERED.
    WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated
    December 17, 2009 and Resolution dated March 4, 2010 in CA-G.R. SP No. 108616, are
    SET ASIDE. Criminal Case No. 05-235814 is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of
    Manila,... Branch 27 for further proceedings.
    Principles:
    An examination of the information filed against respondent, however, shows the sufficiency
    of the allegations therein to constitute the crime of bigamy as it contained all the elements of
    the crime as provided for in Article 349[32] of the Revised Penal
    Code, to wit:
    (1) That the offender has been legally married;
    (2) That the first marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is
    absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code;
    (3) That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and
    (4) That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.
    The Family Code has settled once and for all the conflicting jurisprudence on the matter. A
    declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage is now explicitly required either as a cause
    of action or a ground for defense.
    What makes a person criminally liable for bigamy is when he contracts a second or
    subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage

    You might also like