Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS:
Herein accused under the name Proceso Rosima contracted a marriage to one Maria Gorrea in the Philippine
Independent Church in Cebu while he is still married to Maria Gorrea. Yet again, the accused now under the
name of Proceso Aragon contracted another a canonical marriage with Maria Faicol.
This was put into possibility because the accused was then a traveling sales man. When Maria Gorrea died,
and seeing that the coast was dear in Cebu, Aragon brought Faicol to Cebu from Iloilo, where she became a
teacher-nurse. Maria Faicol however, suffered injuries to her eyes because of physical maltreatment brought to
her by Aragon. Due to the injuries she was sent to Iloilo to undergo treatment, in her absence the accused
contracted a third marriage with a certain Jesusa C. Maglasang.
He then categorically denied in the court his marriage to Maria Faicol but affirmed his marriage to Maglasang.
The Court of First Instance of Cebu held that even in the absence of an express provision in Act No. 3613
authorizing the filing of an action for judicial declaration of nullity of a marriage void ab initio, defendant could
not legally contract marriage with Jesusa C. Maglasang without the dissolution of his marriage to Maria Faicol,
either by the death of the latter or by the judicial declaration of the nullity of such marriage, at the instance of
the latter.
ISSUE:
Whethe or not accused is guilty of bigamy?
HELD:
It is to be noted that the action was instituted upon complaint of the second wife, whose marriage with the
appellant was not renewed after the death of the first wife and before the third marriage was entered into.
Hence, the last marriage was a valid one and appellant's prosecution for contracting this marriage can not
prosper.
For the foregoing considerations, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and the defendant-appellant
acquitted, with costs de oficio, without prejudice to his prosecution for having contracted the second bigamous
marriage. So ordered.
Full text
G.R. No. L-5930
that he was the victim of force and intimidation in the second marriage; it does not determine the existence of any of
the elements of the charge of bigamy. A decision thereon is not essential to the determination of the criminal charge.
It is, therefore, not a prejudicial question.
There is another reason for dismissing the appeal. The order appealed from is one denying a motion to dismiss and
is not a final judgment. It is, therefore, not appealable (Rule 118, secs. 1 and 2).
The order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against defendant-appellant. So ordered.