inquiries in aid of legislation, Article 6 of the 1987 constitution
People vs Go case digest
lawFull description
Full description
Full description
dfdsafdafadfsafd
Admin lawFull description
Tankeh vs Dbp DigestFull description
Gelano vs CA (Digest)Full description
DigestFull description
Borjal vs CA!Full description
IMELDA MARBELLA-BOBIS vs. ISAGANI D. BOBIS
TOPIC: FACTS:
On October 21, 1985, respondent contracted a first marriage with one Maria Dulce B. a!ier. "itho "ithout ut said said marria marriage ge ha!ing ha!ing been annulle annulled, d, nullif nullified ied or termi terminate nated, d, the same same respon respondent dent contracted a second marriage with petitioner #melda Marbella$Bobis on anuar% 25, 199& and allegedl% a third marriage with a certain ulia 'all% (ernande). Based on petitioners complaint$ affida affida!it !it,, an inform informati ation on for bigam% bigam% was filed filed agains againstt respond respondent ent.. 'ometi 'ometime me therea thereafte fter, r, respondent initiated a ci!il action for the *udicial declaration of absolute nullit% of his first marriage on the ground that it was celebrated without a marriage license. "hether the subse+uent filing of a ci!il action for declaration of nullit% of a pre!ious marriage constitutes a pre*udicial +uestion to a criminal case for bigam %.
ISSUE:
RULING: o.
(e who contracts a second marriage before the *udicial declaration of nullit% of the first marriage assumes the ris- of being prosecuted for bigam%, and in such a case the criminal case ma% not be suspended on the ground of the pendenc% of a ci!il case for declaration of nullit%. #n a recent case for concubinage, it was held that the pendenc% of a ci!il case for declaration of nullit% of marriage is not a pre*udicial +uestion. his ruling applies here b% analog% since both crimes presuppose the subsistence of a marriage.
he burden of proof to show the dissolution of the first marriage before the second marriage was contracted rests upon the defense, but defense, but that is a matter that can be raised in the trial of the bigam% case. #n the meantime, it should be stressed that not e!er% defense raised in the ci!il action ma% be used as a pre*udicial +uestion to obtain the suspension of the criminal action. he lower court, therefore, erred in suspending the criminal case for bigam%. Moreo!er, when respondent was indicted for bigam%, the fact that he entered into two marriage ceremonies appeared indubitable. #t was onl% after he was sued b% petitioner for bigam% that he thought of see-ing a *udicial declaration of nullit% of his first marriage. he ob!ious intent, therefore, is that respondent merel% resorted to the ci!il action as a potential pre*udicial +uestion for the purpose of frustrating or dela%ing his criminal prosecution. By: Roenet Mark D. Abe Abe