Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 79 views

    MARBELLA-BOBIS Vs BOBIS - GR NO. 138509

    Uploaded by

    Nikay Serdeña
    1) The respondent was charged with bigamy for contracting multiple marriages without having his first marriage annulled. He filed a motion to suspend the criminal bigamy case due to a pending civil case seeking to declare his first marriage null. 2) The court ruled that a subsequent civil case for nullity does not constitute a prejudicial question that can suspend a criminal bigamy case. 3) For bigamy charges, the validity of the first marriage can only be determined through a prior judicial declaration of nullity. Allowing a nullity case to suspend bigamy proceedings would undermine laws against bigamy.

    Copyright:

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

    MARBELLA-BOBIS Vs BOBIS - GR NO. 138509

    Uploaded by

    Nikay Serdeña
    79 views2 pages
    1) The respondent was charged with bigamy for contracting multiple marriages without having his first marriage annulled. He filed a motion to suspend the criminal bigamy case due to a pending civil case seeking to declare his first marriage null. 2) The court ruled that a subsequent civil case for nullity does not constitute a prejudicial question that can suspend a criminal bigamy case. 3) For bigamy charges, the validity of the first marriage can only be determined through a prior judicial declaration of nullity. Allowing a nullity case to suspend bigamy proceedings would undermine laws against bigamy.

    Original Title

    12. MARBELLA-BOBIS vs BOBIS_GR NO. 138509_

    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 charged with bigamy for contracting multiple marriages without having his first marriage annulled. He filed a motion to suspend the criminal bigamy case due to a pending civil case seeking to declare his first marriage null. 2) The court ruled that a subsequent civil case for nullity does not constitute a prejudicial question that can suspend a criminal bigamy case. 3) For bigamy charges, the validity of the first marriage can only be determined through a prior judicial declaration of nullity. Allowing a nullity case to suspend bigamy proceedings would undermine laws against bigamy.

    Copyright:

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

    MARBELLA-BOBIS Vs BOBIS - GR NO. 138509

    Uploaded by

    Nikay Serdeña
    1) The respondent was charged with bigamy for contracting multiple marriages without having his first marriage annulled. He filed a motion to suspend the criminal bigamy case due to a pending civil case seeking to declare his first marriage null. 2) The court ruled that a subsequent civil case for nullity does not constitute a prejudicial question that can suspend a criminal bigamy case. 3) For bigamy charges, the validity of the first marriage can only be determined through a prior judicial declaration of nullity. Allowing a nullity case to suspend bigamy proceedings would undermine laws against bigamy.

    Copyright:

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

    Ronie C.

    Cajayon
    JD-1 WVSU
    1st Sem AY 2021-2022

    IMELDA MARBELLA-BOBIS, petitioner, vs.


    ISAGANI D. BOBIS, respondent.
    G.R. No. 138509 July 31, 2000
    YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
    FACTS:
    The respondent contracted a first marriage with one Maria Dulce B. Javier. Without said
    marriage having been annulled, nullified or terminated, the same respondent contracted a second
    marriage with petitioner Imelda Marbella-Bobis and allegedly a third marriage with a certain Julia
    Sally Hernandez. An information for bigamy was filed against respondent

    Sometime thereafter, respondent initiated a civil action for the judicial declaration of
    absolute nullity of his first marriage on the ground that it was celebrated without a marriage
    license. Respondent then filed a motion to suspend the proceedings in the criminal case for
    bigamy invoking the pending civil case for nullity of the first marriage as a prejudicial
    question to the criminal case. The trial judge granted the motion to suspend the criminal case.
    Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied.

    ISSUES:
    Whether 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.

    RULING:
    The petition for review on certiorari was granted, reversing the decision of the lower court
    and ordered the latter to immediately proceed with the criminal case.
    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.
    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.

    Article 40 of the Family Code requires a prior judicial declaration of nullity of a previous
    marriage before a party may remarry. The clear implication of this is that it is not for the parties,
    particularly the accused, to determine the validity or invalidity of the marriage.

    In the case at bar, 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. Otherwise, all that an adventurous bigamist has to do is to 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 that 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. 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.

    Thus, as ruled in Landicho v. Relova, he who contracts a second marriage before the
    judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for
    bigamy, and in such a case the criminal case may not be suspended on the ground of the
    pendency of a civil case for declaration of nullity.

    You might also like