Posted by: Elmer Brabante | September 1, 2009

Marbella-Bobis vs. Bobis


IMELDA MARBELLA-BOBIS vs. ISAGANI BOBIS

GR No. 138509

July 31, 2000 

 

FACTS:

On October 21, 1985, respondent Isagani Bobis contracted a first marriage with Ma. Dulce Javier.  With said marriage not yet annulled, nullified nor terminated, he contracted a second marriage with herein petitioner Imelda Marbella (on Jan. 25, 1996), and a third marriage with certain Julia Hernandez, thereafter.

Petitioner then filed a case of bigamy against respondent on Feb. 25, 1998, at the RTC of Quezon City.  Thereafter, respondent initiated a civil action for the declaration of absolute nullity of his first marriage license.  He then filed a motion to suspend the criminal proceeding for bigamy invoking the civil case for nullity of the first marriage as a prejudicial question to the criminal case.  The RTC granted the motion, while petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. 

ISSUE:

                Whether or not 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. 

HELD: 

                Any decision in the civil case the fact that respondent entered into a second marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage.  Thus, a decision in the civil case is not essential to the determination of the criminal charge.  It is therefore not a prejudicial question.  Respondent cannot be permitted to use his malfeasance to defeat the criminal action against him. 

                A prejudicial question  is one which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein.  It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused.  It must appear not only that the civil case involves facts upon which the criminal action is based, but also that the resolution of the issues raised in the civil action would necessarily be determinative of the civil case.  Consequently, the defense must involve an issue similar or intimately related to the same issue raised in the criminal action and its resolution determinative of whether or not the latter action may proceed.  Its two essential elements are (a) the civil action involves an issue raised in the criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. 

                In the case at bar, the respondent’s clear intent is to obtain a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage and thereafter to invoke that very same judgment to prevent his prosecution for bigamy.  He cannot have his cake and eat it too.  Otherwise, all that an adventurous bigamist has to do is disregard Article 40 of the Family Code, contract a subsequent marriage and escape a bigamy charge by simply claiming that the first marriage is void and the subsequent marriage is equally void for lack of a prior judicial declaration of nullity of the first.  A party may even enter into a marriage aware of the absence of a requisite—usually the marriage license—and thereafter contract a subsequent marriage without obtaining a declaration of nullity of the first on the assumption that the first marriage is void.  Such scenario would render nugatory the provisions on bigamy.  As succinctly held in Landicho v. Relova, 22 SCRA 731(1968):

                Parties to a marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, [as] only competent courts have such authority.  Prior to such declaration of nullity of the first marriage is beyond question.  A party who contracts a second marriage then assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy.         

                A prejudicial question does not conclusively resolve the guilt or innocence of the accused but simply tests the sufficiency of the allegations in the information in order to sustain the further prosecution of the criminal case.  A party who raises a prejudicial question is deemed to have hypothetically admitted that all the essential elements of a crime have been adequately alleged in the information, considering that the prosecution has not yet presented single evidence on the indictment or may not yet have rested its case.  A challenge of the allegations in the information on the ground of prejudicial question is in effect a question on the merits of the criminal charge through a non-criminal suit. 

                Ignorance of the existence of Article 40 of the Family Code cannot be successfully invoked as an excuse.  The contracting of a marriage knowing that the requirements of the law have not been complied with or that the marriage is in disregard of a legal impediment is an act penalized by the Revised Penal Code.  The legality of a marriage is a matter of law and every person is presumed to know the law.  As respondent did not obtain the judicial declaration of nullity when he entered into the second marriage, why should he be allowed to belatedly obtain that judicial declaration in order to delay his criminal prosecution and subsequently defeat it by his own disobedience of the law?  If he wants to raise the nullity of the previous marriage, he can do it as a matter of defense when he presents his evidence during the trial proper in the criminal case. 

                The elements of bigamy are (1) 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 has not been judicially declared presumptively dead; (3) that he contracts a subsequent marriage; and (4) the subsequent marriage would have been valid had it not been for the existence of the first.  The exceptions to prosecution for bigamy are those covered by Article 41 of the Family Code and by PD 1083 otherwise known as the Code of Muslim Personal Laws.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: