Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis (2000)

Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis

July 31, 2000

Ponente: Justice Ynares-Santiago

PARTIES:

- Petitioner: Imelda Marbella-Bobis

- Respondent: Isagani D. Bobis

FACTS:

·       October 21, 1985 – Isagani contracted marriage with Maria Dulce B. Javier

·       January 25, 1996 – Isagani contracted second marriage with Imelda Marbella-Bobis.

·       Isagani is alleged to have contracted a third marriage with a certain Julia Sally Hernandez.

·       February 25, 1998 - Imelda Marbella-Bobis filed an information for bigamy against Isagani (RTC Quezon City)

·       Sometime thereafter, Isagani initiated a civil action for judicial declaration of absolute nullity of his first marriage with Maria Dulce on the ground that it was celebrated without a marriage license.

·       Isagani then filed for a motion to suspend the proceedings in the criminal case invoking the pending civil case for nullity as a prejudicial question to the criminal case.

·       RTC judge granted the motion to suspend the criminal case à Imelda Marbella-Bobis filed for motion for reconsideration à denied by the RTC.

ISSUE:

W/N the subsequent filing of a civil action for declaration of nullity of marriage of a previous marriage constitutes a prejudicial question to a criminal case for bigamy.

HOLDING:

·       A prejudicial question does not conclusively resolve the guilt or innocence of the accused but simply tests the sufficiency of the allegations in the information in order to sustain the further prosecution of the criminal case.

·       A party who raises a prejudicial question is deemed to have hypothetically admitted that all the essential elements of a crime have been adequately alleged in the information.

·       Article 40 of the Family Code: requires a prior judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage before a party may remarry.

o   Isagani’s clear intent is to obtain a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage and thereafter invoke that very same judgment to prevent his prosecution for bigamy.

o   Without first having obtained the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage, cannot be said to have validly entered into the second marriage. In the current jurisprudence, a marriage though void still needs a judicial declaration of such fact before any party can marry again; otherwise the second marriage will also be void. The reason is that, without a judicial declaration of its nullity, the first marriage is presumed to be subsisting. In the case at bar, respondent was for all legal intents and purposes regarded as a married man at the time he contracted his second marriage with petitioner.

·       Any decision in the civil action for nullity would not erase the fact that respondent entered into a second marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage. Thus, a decision in the civil case is not essential to the determination of the criminal charge. It is, therefore, not a prejudicial question

·       *Parties to a marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, only competent courts having such authority. Prior to such declaration of nullity, the validity of the first marriage is beyond question. A party who contracts a second marriage then assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy (Landicho v. Relova)

JUDGMENT:

- Petition is GRANTED.

- RTC decision REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

- Orders trial court to IMMEDIATELY proceed with Criminal Case.