People of The Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Edgardo V. ODTUHAN, Respondent
People of The Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Edgardo V. ODTUHAN, Respondent
People of The Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Edgardo V. ODTUHAN, Respondent
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
507
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f960d001ebf85c9ac003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/11
11/7/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 701
PERALTA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court filed by petitioner People of the Philippines,
represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, against
respondent Edgardo V. Odtuhan assailing the Court of Appeals
Decision1 dated December 17, 2009 and Resolution2 dated March 4,
2010 in CA-G.R. SP No. 108616. The assailed decision granted the
petition for certiorari filed by respondent, and ordered the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 27, to give due course to and
receive evidence on respondent’s motion to quash and resolve the
case with dispatch, while the assailed resolution denied petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration.
The facts of the case follow:
On July 2, 1980, respondent married Jasmin Modina (Modina).3
On October 28, 1993, respondent married Eleanor A. Alagon
(Alagon).4 Sometime in August 1994, he filed a
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, with Associate
Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Romeo F. Barza, concurring; Rollo, pp. 37A-47.
2 Id., at pp. 48-49.
3 Records, p. 8.
4 Id., at p. 7.
508
with Bigamy.
On April 15, 2005, respondent was indicted in an Information9
for Bigamy committed as follows:
_______________
5 Rollo, p. 144.
6 Records, pp. 15-19.
7 Id., at p. 5.
8 Id., at pp. 4-6.
9 Id., at pp. 1-2.
10 Id., at p. 1.
11 Id., at pp. 66-71.
12 Id., at p. 66.
509
_______________
13 Branch 27, Manila.
14 Penned by Judge Teresa P. Soriaso; records, pp. 104-105.
15 Records, pp. 121-122.
16 CA Rollo, pp. 2-26.
17 Id., at p. 9.
18 Rollo, p. 46. (Emphasis in the original)
510
ing 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 lacking.20 The
appellate court further held that respondent is even better off than
Morigo which thus calls for the application of such doctrine,
considering that respondent contracted the second marriage after
filing the petition for the declaration of nullity of his first marriage
and he obtained the favorable declaration before the complaint for
bigamy was filed against him.21 The CA thus concluded that the
RTC gravely abused its discretion in denying respondent’s motion to
quash the information, considering that the facts alleged in the
information do not charge an offense.22
With the denial of the motion for reconsideration before the CA,
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:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f960d001ebf85c9ac003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/11
11/7/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 701
_______________
19 466 Phil. 1013; 422 SCRA 376 (2004).
20 Rollo, p. 44.
21 Id., at pp. 44-45.
22 Id., at p. 46.
511
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f960d001ebf85c9ac003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/11
11/7/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 701
_______________
23 Id., at pp. 16-17.
24 G.R. No. 181089, October 22, 2012, 684 SCRA 315.
25 G.R. No. 188775, August 24, 2011, 656 SCRA 307.
26 G.R. No. 183824, December 8, 2010, 637 SCRA 615.
512
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f960d001ebf85c9ac003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/11
11/7/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 701
_______________
27 People v. Balao, G.R. No. 176819, January 26, 2011, 640 SCRA 565, 573; Go
v. The Fifth Division, Sandiganbayan, 549 Phil. 783, 805; 521 SCRA 270, 291
(2007).
28 Santos v. People, G.R. No. 173176, August 26, 2008, 563 SCRA 341, 368.
29 The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 117, Section 4.
513
_______________
30 The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 117, Section 5.
31 The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 117, Section 6.
32 Art. 349. Bigamy.—The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any
person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former
marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared
presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings.
33 Nollora, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 191425, September 7, 2011, 657 SCRA 330,
342; Teves v. People, supra note 25, at p. 312; Antone v. Beronilla, supra note 26, at
pp. 627-628.
514
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f960d001ebf85c9ac003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/11
11/7/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 701
Modina is null and void from the beginning because of the absence
of a marriage license is only an evidence that seeks to establish a
fact contrary to that alleged in the information that a first valid
marriage was subsisting at the time he contracted the second
marriage. This should not be considered at all, because matters of
defense cannot be raised in a motion to quash.34 It is not proper,
therefore, to resolve the charges at the very outset without the
benefit of a full blown trial. The 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.35 With 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.
Respondent’s motion to quash was founded on the trial court’s
declaration that his marriage with Modina is null and void ab initio.
He claims that with such declaration, one of the elements of the
crime is wanting. Thus, the allegations in the information do not
charge the offense of bigamy, or at the very least, such court decree
extinguished his criminal liability. Both respondent and the CA
heavily relied on the Court’s pronouncement in Morigo v. People36
where the accused therein was acquitted because the elements of the
crime of bigamy were incomplete. In said case, the first marriage
was declared null and void, because the parties only signed the
marriage contract without the presence of a solemnizing officer.
Considering, therefore, that the declaration of nullity retroacts to the
date of the first marriage, the Court held that there was no marriage
to speak of when the accused contracted the second marriage.
Logically, the accused was acquitted.
_______________
34 Antone v. Beronilla, supra note 26, at p. 628.
35 Id., at p. 627.
36 Supra note 19.
515
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
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f960d001ebf85c9ac003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/11
11/7/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 701
37
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.38
What makes a person criminally liable for bigamy is when he
contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of
a valid marriage.39 Parties 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.
Therefore, he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial
declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being
prosecuted for bigamy.40 If we allow respondent’s line of defense
and the CA’s ratiocination, a person who commits bigamy can
simply evade prosecution by immediately filing a petition for the
declaration of nullity of his earlier marriage and hope that a
favorable decision is rendered therein before anyone institutes a
complaint against him.41
Respondent, likewise, 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. Again, we cannot sustain such contention. In addition
to the discussion above, settled is the rule that criminal culpability
attaches to the offender upon the commission of the offense and
from that instant,
_______________
37 Teves v. People, supra note 25, at p. 313.
38 Id., at pp. 313-314.
39 Montañez v. Cipriano, supra note 24, at p. 325.
40 Id., at pp. 325-326.
41 Teves v. People, supra note 25, at p. 314.
516
_______________
42 Id.
43 Antone v. Beronilla, supra note 26, at p. 632. (Italics in the original)
517
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f960d001ebf85c9ac003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/11
11/7/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 701
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f960d001ebf85c9ac003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/11