PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, v.

EDGAR POE,
respondent, G.R. No. 191566, July 17, 2013 (Third Division)

MALALUAN, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari by petitioner People of

the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor
General, against respondent Edgar Poe assailing the Court of
Appeals Decision dated December 17, 2009 and Resolution
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.

The facts of the case follow:

On July 2, 1980, respondent married Jasmine Medina

(Medina). On October 28, 1993, respondent married Elizabeth
Aragon (Aragon). Sometime in August 1994, he filed a petition
for annulment of his marriage with Medina. On February 23,
1999, the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 70 granted respondents
petition and declared his marriage with Medina void ab initio
for lack of a valid marriage license. On November 10, 2003,
Aragon died. In the meantime, in June 2003, private
complainant Evelyn Aragon learned of respondents previous
marriage with Medina. She thus filed a Complaint-
Affidavit charging respondent with Bigamy.

On April 15, 2005, respondent was indicted in an Information for

Bigamy committed as follows:

That on or about October 28, 1993, in the City of Manila,

Philippines, the said accused being then legally married to
JASMINE MEDINA and without such marriage having been
legally dissolved, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously contract a second or subsequent marriage with
ELIZABETH ARAGON, which second/subsequent marriage has
all the essential requisites for validity.

Contrary to law.

On February 5, 2008, respondent filed an Omnibus

Motion praying that he be allowed to present evidence to

1
support his motion; that his motion to quash be granted; and
that the case be dismissed. Respondent moved for the quashal
of the information on two grounds, to wit: (1) that the facts do
not charge the offense of bigamy; and (2) that the criminal
action or liability has been extinguished.

On September 4, 2008, the RTC issued an Order denying

respondents Omnibus Motion. The RTC held that the facts
alleged in the information that there was a valid marriage
between respondent and Medina and without such marriage
having been dissolved, respondent contracted a second
marriage with Aragon 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.
Respondents motion for reconsideration was likewise denied in
an Order dated February 20, 2009.

Aggrieved, respondent instituted a special civil action on

certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA,
assailing the denial of his motion to quash the information
despite the fact that his first marriage with Medina was
declared null and void ab initio prior to the filing of the bigamy
case.

On December 17, 2009, the CA rendered the assailed decision,

the dispositive portion of which reads:

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.

The CA applied the conclusion made by the Court in Morigo v.

People, [1] 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. The
appellate court further held that respondent is even better off
than Morigo which thus calls for the application of such

1 466 Phil. 1013 (2004).

2
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. 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.

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.

The petition is meritorious.

In Montaez vs. Cipriano [2], 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

2 G.R. No. 181089, October 22, 2012, 684 SCRA 315

3
that her first marriage had already been declared void ab initio
prior to the filing of the bigamy case.

In Teves vs. People,[3] 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 vs. Beronilla[4], 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
Montaez, 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.

As defined in Antone, "a motion to quash information is the

mode by which an accused assails the validity of a criminal
complaint or information filed against him for insufficiency on its
face in point of law, or for defects which are apparent in the
face of the information." It is a hypothetical admission of the
facts alleged in the information. The fundamental test in
determining the sufficiency of the material averments in an
Information is whether or not the facts alleged therein, which
are hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential
elements of the crime defined by law. Evidence aliunde or
matters extrinsic of the information are not to be considered. To
be sure, a motion to quash should be based on a defect in the

3 G.R. No. 188775, August 24, 2011, 656 SCRA 307

4 G.R. No. 183824, December 8, 2010, 637 SCRA 615.

4
information which is evident on its fact. Thus, if the defect can
be cured by amendment or if it is based on the ground that the
facts charged do not constitute an offense, the prosecution is
given by the court the opportunity to correct the defect by
amendment. If the motion to quash is sustained, the court may
order that another complaint or information be filed except
when the information is quashed on the ground of extinction of
criminal liability or double jeopardy.

An examination of the information filed against respondent,

however, shows the sufficiency of the allegations therein to
constitute the crime of bigamy as it contained all the elements
of the crime as provided for in Article 349 of the Revised Penal
Code, to wit:

(1) That 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
could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil
Code;

(3) That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage;

and

(4) That the second or subsequent marriage has all the

essential requisites for validity[5].

Here, the information contained the following allegations: (1)

that respondent is legally married to Medina; (2) that without
such marriage having been legally dissolved; (3) that
respondent willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously contracted a
second marriage with Aragon; and (4) that the second
marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.
Respondents evidence showing the courts declaration that
his marriage to Medina 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. 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

5 Reyes, L.B., THE REVISED PENAL CODE. Book Two, 14th ed., 1998, p. 907.

5
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. 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.

Respondents motion to quash was founded on the trial courts

declaration that his marriage with Medina 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 Courts pronouncement in
Morigo v. People 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.

The Family Code has settled once and for all the conflicting
jurisprudence on the matter. A declaration of the absolute
nullity of a marriage is now explicitly required either as a cause
of action or a ground for defense. It has been held in a number
of cases that a judicial declaration of nullity is required before a
valid subsequent marriage can be contracted; or else, what
transpires is a bigamous marriage, reprehensible and immoral.

What makes a person criminally liable for bigamy is when he

contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the
subsistence of a valid marriage. Parties to the marriage should
not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for the same
must be submitted to the judgment of competent courts and
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. Therefore, he who
contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of
nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted
for bigamy. If we allow respondents line of defense and the
CAs ratiocination, a person who commits bigamy can simply
evade prosecution by immediately filing a petition for the

6
declaration of nullity of his earlier marriage and hope that a
favorable decision is rendered therein before anyone institutes
a complaint against him.

Respondent, likewise, claims that there are more reasons to

quash the information against him, because he obtained the
declaration of nullity of marriage before the filing of the
complaint for bigamy against him. Again, we cannot sustain
such contention. In addition to the discussion above, settled is
the rule that criminal culpability attaches to the offender upon
the commission of the offense and from that instant, liability
appends to him until extinguished as provided by law and that
the time of filing of the criminal complaint or information is
material only for determining prescription.

Thus, as held in Antone:

To conclude, the issue on the declaration of nullity of the

marriage between petitioner and respondent only after the
latter contracted the subsequent marriage is, therefore,
immaterial for the purpose of establishing that the facts alleged
in the information for Bigamy does not constitute an offense.
Following the same rationale, neither may such defense be
interposed by the respondent in his motion to quash by way of
exception to the established rule that facts contrary to the
allegations in the information are matters of defense which
may be raised only during the presentation of evidence.

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.

SO ORDERED.

7
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, v. EDGAR POE,
respondent, G.R. No. 191566, July 17, 2013 (Third Division)

MALALUAN, J.:

Facts: Edgar Poe married Jasmine Medina in 1980 and Elizabeth

Aragon in 1993. Poe filed a petition for annulment of his
marriage with Medina where the RTC granted for the absence
of marriage license. In 2003, Elizabeth died and Evelyn Aragon
learned of the previous marriage which led to the filing of a
bigamy case against Poe by Medina in 2005.

Poe filed an Omnibus Motion that the case should be dismissed

on the grounds that the facts do not charge the offence of
bigamy and that the criminal action or liability has already
been extinguished which was denied by the RTC. Poe
contended that the marriage with Medina was already
declared void ab initio prior to the bigamy case, which was
granted by the CA, as one essential element of the crime of
bigamy would be lacking.

Issue: Whether or not the subsequent court judgment declaring

the respondents first marriage void ab initio extinguished the
respondents criminal liability which was already attached prior
to the said judgment.

Ruling: The court ruled that under the Family Code, a

declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage is explicitly
required either as a cause of action or a ground for defense. A
judicial declaration is required before a valid subsequent
marriage can be contracted. Parties to the marriage should
not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for the same
must be submitted to the judgment of competent courts and
only when the nullity of marriage is so declared can it be held
as void, and so long as there is no such declaration.

With this, the petition is granted and the decision of CA is set

aside. The bigamy case is remanded to RTC for further
proceedings.