JAMES CAPILI vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES & SHIRLEY TISMO-CAPILI | G.R. No.

183805 |
Ju! 3" #013
$OCTRINE% The subsequent declaration of nullity of the second marriage had no bearing upon the
determination of petitioners innocence or guilt in the criminal case for bigamy. Thus, it is not considered a
prejudicial question suspend the criminal prosecution for bigamy because all that is required for the
charge of bigamy to prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at the time the second marriage is
contracted.
FACTS%
On June 28, 200, James !as charged !ith the crime of bigamy before the "T# of $asig #ity. The
information alleged that during the subsistence of a la!ful marriage !ith %arla &. 'edina(#apili and
!ithout said marriage ha)ing been legally dissol)ed or annulled, James contracted a second
marriage !ith *hirley +. Tismo.
$etitioner filed a 'otion to *uspend $roceedings alleging that, -./ there is a pending ci)il case for
$ECLARATION OF N&LLITY o' ()* SECON$ MARRIAGE before the "T# of 0ntipolo #ity filed by
%arla &. 'edina(#apili1 -2/ +, ()* *v*,( ()-( ()* .-//+-0* +s 1*2-/*1 ,u -,1 vo+1" +( 3ou1
*42u5-(* )+. '/o. ()* 2)-/0* o' 6+0-.!7 -,1 -2/ ()* 5*,1*,2! o' ()* 2+v+ 2-s* 'o/ ()*
1*2-/-(+o, o' ,u+(! o' ()* s*2o,1 .-//+-0* s*/v*s -s - 5/*8u1+2+- 9u*s(+o, +, ()* +,s(-,(
2/+.+,- 2-s*.
The arraignment and pre(trial !ere reset by the "T# of $asig #ity.
*ubsequently, the "T# of 0ntipolo #ity declared the incipient in)alidity of the second marriage
bet!een petitioner and *hirley on the ground that a subsequent marriage contracted by the husband
during the lifetime of the legal !ife is )oid from the beginning. James filed his 'otion to 3ismiss
praying for the dismissal of the criminal case for bigamy filed against him.
The "T# of $asig #ity granted petitioners 'otion to 3ismiss since the second marriage bet!een
James 4alter $. #apili and *hirley +. Tismo had already been nullified by the "T#, 5ranch 62 of
0ntipolo #ity !hich has declared 7the )oidness, non(e8istent or incipient in)alidity7 of the said second
marriage. 0s such, the "T# submits that there is no more bigamy to spea9 of.
The pri)ate prosecutor filed an opposition to the motion, contending that the issues raised in the ci)il
case are not similar or intimately related to the issue of the bigamy case and that the resolution of the
issues in said ci)il case !ould not determine !hether or not the criminal action may proceed.
The pri)ate respondent filed an appeal before the #0 and the #0 re)ersed and set aside the "T#s
decision.
ISS&E, :s the subsequent declaration of nullity of the second marriage is a ground for dismissal of the
criminal case for bigamy; < NO
R&LING,
The elements of the crime of bigamy, therefore, are, -./ the offender has been legally married1 -2/ the
marriage has not been legally dissol)ed or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could
not yet be presumed dead according to the #i)il #ode1 -2/ that he contracts a second or subsequent
marriage1 and -/ that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for )alidity.
The subsequent declaration of nullity of the second marriage had no bearing upon the determination of
petitioners innocence or guilt in the criminal case for bigamy, because all that is required for the charge of
bigamy to prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at the time the second marriage is contracted.
:n the present case, it appears that all the elements of the crime of bigamy !ere present !hen the
:nformation !as filed on June 28, 200. The second marriage bet!een petitioner and pri)ate respondent
!as contracted on 3ecember 8, .=== during the subsistence of a )alid first marriage bet!een petitioner
and %arla &. 'edina(#apili contracted on *eptember 2, .===. >otably, the "T# of 0ntipolo #ity itself
declared the bigamous nature of the second marriage bet!een petitioner and pri)ate respondent. Thus,
the subsequent judicial declaration of the second marriage for being bigamous in nature does not bar the
prosecution of petitioner for the crime of bigamy.
?inally, it is a settled rule that the criminal culpability attaches to the offender upon the commission of the
offense, and from that instant, liability appends to him until e8tinguished as pro)ided by la!. :t is clear
then that the crime of bigamy !as committed by petitioner from the time he contracted the second
marriage !ith pri)ate respondent. Thus, the finality of the judicial declaration of nullity of petitioners
second marriage does not impede the filing of a criminal charge for bigamy against him.