GR 191566; (July, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 191566; July 17, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. EDGARDO V. ODTUHAN, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Edgardo Odtuhan married Jasmin Modina in 1980. In 1993, while his first marriage was subsisting, he contracted a second marriage with Eleanor Alagon. In 1994, he filed a petition to annul his first marriage, which was granted in 1999, declaring it void ab initio for lack of a valid marriage license. Alagon died in 2003. In 2005, an Information for Bigamy was filed against Odtuhan, alleging he contracted a second marriage while his first marriage to Modina remained legally undissolved.
Odtuhan filed a Motion to Quash the Information, arguing the facts did not charge an offense since his first marriage was subsequently declared void, and his criminal liability was extinguished. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion, holding the information sufficiently alleged all elements of bigamy and that a subsequent declaration of nullity does not extinguish criminal liability. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, applying Morigo v. People, and ordered the trial court to receive evidence on the motion to quash, reasoning that if the first marriage was void, an essential element of bigamy would be absent.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the petition for certiorari and ordering the RTC to receive evidence on the motion to quash based on the subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the CA Decision. The Court held that the Information for Bigamy sufficiently alleged all the elements of the crime: (1) a first valid marriage; (2) that marriage had not been legally dissolved or the absent spouse declared presumptively dead; and (3) the accused contracted a second marriage. The subsequent judicial declaration of the first marriage’s nullity does not negate the crime, as the criminal liability for bigamy attaches at the moment the second marriage is contracted. At that precise time, all elements of the offense were present because the first marriage was then presumed valid and subsisting. The declaration of nullity, obtained later, is immaterial to the existence of the crime at the time of its commission. The Court clarified that Morigo is inapplicable as it involved a unique scenario where the accused was unaware of the first marriage’s nullity. In contrast, Odtuhan’s case falls under the settled doctrine that a later judicial declaration of nullity does not retroactively absolve criminal liability for bigamy. The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash. The case was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings.