G.R. No. 191566 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. EDGARDO V. ODTUHAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

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 petitioners motion to quash and resolve the case with dispatch. SO ORDERED . [18] The CA applied the conclusion made by the Court in Morigo v. People , [19] and held that there is cogent basis in looking 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 respondents 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: THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT RENDERED ITS DECISION DATED DECEMBER 17, 2009 GRANTING RESPONDENTS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND THE RESOLUTION DATED MARCH 4, 2010 DENYING PETITIONERS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, CONSIDERING THAT: I. THE INFORMATION CHARGING RESPONDENT OF BIGAMY SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGES ALL THE ELEMENTS CONSTITUTING SAID OFFENSE. II. THE SUBSEQUENT COURT JUDGMENT DECLARING RESPONDENTS FIRST MARRIAGE VOID AB INITIO DID NOT EXTINGUISH RESPONDENTS CRIMINAL LIABILITY WHICH ALREADY ATTACHED PRIOR TO SAID JUDGMENT. [23] The petition is meritorious. The issues are not novel and have been squarely ruled upon by this Court in Montañez v. Cipriano , [24] Teves v. People, [25] and Antone v. Beronilla . [26] In Montañez , respondent Cipriano married Socrates in April 1976, but during the subsistence of their marriage on January 24, 1983, respondent married Silverio. In 2001, respondent filed a petition for the annulment of her marriage with Socrates on the ground of psychological incapacity which was granted on July 18, 2003. On May 14, 2004, petitioner filed a complaint for bigamy against respondent. The latter, however, moved for the quashal of the information and dismissal of the criminal complaint alleging that her first marriage had already been declared void ab initio prior to the filing of the bigamy case. In Teves , petitioner married Thelma on November 26, 1992. During the subsistence of their marriage on December 10, 2001, he again married Edita. On May 4, 2006, petitioner obtained a declaration of her marriage with Thelma null and void on the g