Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81984:56006&catid=1572&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:44:57+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 191566, July 17, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. EDGARDO V. ODTUHAN, Respondent.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. EDGARDO V. ODTUHAN, Respondent.
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.
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 petition for annulment of his marriage with Modina.5 On February 23, 1999, the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 70 granted respondent’s petition and declared his marriage with Modina void ab initio for lack of a valid marriage license.6 On November 10, 2003, Alagon died. In the meantime, in June 2003, private complainant Evelyn Abesamis Alagon learned of respondent’s previous marriage with Modina.7 She thus filed a Complaint-Affidavit8 charging respondent with Bigamy.
That on or about October 28, 1993, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused being then legally married to JASMIN MODINA and without such marriage having been legally dissolved, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously contract a second or subsequent marriage with ELEANOR A. ALAGON, which second/subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.
On September 4, 2008, the RTC13 issued an Order14 denying respondent’s Omnibus Motion. The RTC held that the facts alleged in the information – that there was a valid marriage between respondent and Modina and without such marriage having been dissolved, respondent contracted a second marriage with Alagon – constitute the crime of bigamy. The trial court further held that neither can the information be quashed on the ground that criminal liability has been extinguished, because the declaration of nullity of the first marriage is not one of the modes of extinguishing criminal liability. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied in an Order15 dated February 20, 2009.
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 petitioner’s motion to quash and resolve the case with dispatch.
THE INFORMATION CHARGING RESPONDENT OF BIGAMY SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGES ALL THE ELEMENTS CONSTITUTING SAID OFFENSE.
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 ground that the latter is physically incapacitated to comply with her marital obligations. On June 8, 2006, an Information for Bigamy was filed against petitioner. The court eventually convicted petitioner of the crime charged.
In Antone, petitioner married respondent in 1978, but during the subsistence of their marriage, respondent contracted a second marriage in 1991. On April 26, 2007, respondent obtained a declaration of nullity of her first marriage which decision became final and executory on May 15, 2007. On June 21, 2007, the prosecution filed an information for bigamy against respondent which the latter sought to be quashed on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense.
The present case stemmed from similar procedural and factual antecedents as in the above cases. As in Antone and Montañez, respondent moved to quash the information on the grounds that the facts do not charge the offense of bigamy and that his criminal liability has been extinguished both because of the declaration of nullity of the first marriage. The RTC refused to quash the information. On petition for certiorari, the CA, however, reached a different conclusion.
Here, the information contained the following allegations: (1) that respondent is legally married to Modina; (2) that without such marriage having been legally dissolved; (3) that respondent willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously contracted a second marriage with Alagon; and (4) that the second marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. Respondent’s evidence showing the court’s declaration that his marriage to 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.
In view of the foregoing, the CA erred in granting the petition for certiorari filed by respondent. The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying his motion to quash and to allow him to present evidence to support his omnibus motion.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated December 17, 2009 and Resolution dated March 4, 2010 in CA-G.R. SP No. 108616, are SET ASIDE. Criminal Case No. 05-235814 is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 27 for further proceedings.
Please take notice that on July 17, 2013 a Decision, copy attached herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on July 26, 2013 at 10:25 a.m.

References: v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v.