MOTION TO QUASH Respondent appealed to the CA on certiorari and it defense cannot be raised in a motion to quash.

It is not
concluded that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in proper, therefore, to resolve the charges at the very
1. People of the Philippines vs Edgardo Odtuhan
denying respondent’s motion to quash the information, outset without the benefit of a full blown trial.
GR. no. 191566 Jul 17, 2013 considering that the facts alleged in the information do
2. No. Respondent’s claim that there are more reasons
not charge an offense.
Ponente: Peralta, J. to quash the information against him because he
Issues: obtained the declaration of nullity of marriage before
Facts: the filing of the complaint for bigamy against him is
1. Whether or not the motion to quash by respondent is
On July 2, 1980, respondent Edgardo Odtuhan married without merit. Criminal culpability attaches to the
proper
Jasmin Modina. On October 28, 1993, he also married offender upon the commission of the offense and from
Eleanor Alagon. He later filed a petition for annulment 2. Whether or not the court’s judgment declaring that instant, there is already liability. The time of filing
of his marriage with Modina. The RTC granted respondent’s first marriage void ab initio extinguished of the criminal complaint or information is material
respondent’s petition and declared his first marriage respondent’s criminal liability only for determining prescription.
void ab initio for lack of a valid marriage license. On It has been held in a number of cases that a judicial
Held:
November 10, 2003, Alagon died. In the meantime, declaration of nullity is required before a valid
private complainant Evelyn Alagon learned of 1. No. A motion to quash information is the mode by subsequent marriage can be contracted. Therefore, he
respondent’s previous marriage with Modina and thus which an accused assails the validity of a criminal who contracts a second marriage before the judicial
filed a Complaint-Affidavit charging respondent with complaint or information filed against him for declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the
Bigamy. insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defects risk of being prosecuted for bigamy.
which are apparent in the face of the information. In this
Respondent moved to quash the information on two The petition on review on ceritorari is granted. The
case however, there is sufficiency of the allegations in
grounds: (1) that the facts do not charge the offense of CA’s decision is set aside and the case is remanded to
the information to constitute the crime of bigamy. It
bigamy; and (2) that the criminal action or liability has the RTC.
contained all the elements of the crime as provided for
been extinguished.
in Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code: (1) that
2. Suy sui vs People 92 PHIL 684 February 17, 1953
The RTC held that the facts constitute the crime of respondent is legally married to Modina; (2) that
bigamy. There was a valid marriage between without such marriage having been legally dissolved; Ponente: Paras, CJ.
respondent and Modina and without such marriage (3) that respondent willfully, unlawfully, and
Facts: That on or about the 17th day of July, 1950, in
having been dissolved, respondent contracted a second feloniously contracted a second marriage with Alagon;
the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did
marriage with Alagon. It further held that neither can and (4) that the second marriage has all the essential
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell
the information be quashed on the ground that criminal requisites for validity.
and offer for sale to the public at 312 Quezon
liability has been extinguished, because the declaration
Respondent’s evidence showing the court’s declaration Boulevard, in the said city, one bag of refined sugar, 10
of nullity of the first marriage is not one of the modes of
that his marriage to Modina is null and void from the lbs. at P2, which price is in excess of P0.20 than that
extinguishing criminal liability.
beginning should not be considered because matters of authorized by law as the maximum ceiling price of said
commodity, to wit P1.80. After trial the court found the
petitioner guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of
P5,000, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and to be barred from engaging in the
wholesale and retail business in the Philippines for a
period of five years, with a recommendation to the
President for the immediate deportation of the
petitioner. From this judgment the petitioner appealed,
but the same was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
The case is now before us on certiorari from the Court
of Appeals.
Issue: W/N the petitioner is liable?
Held: No. The court ruled that the petitioner failed to
raise the point not only in the Court of First Instance
by a motion to quash but also inthe Court of Appeals,
as a consequence of which he must be deemed to have
waived the objection. In the first place, under section
10, Rule 113, of the Rules of Court, failure to move to
quash amounts to a waiver of all objections which are
grounds for a motion to quash, except when the
complaint or information does not charge an offense,or
the court is without jurisdiction of the same. It is
apparent that the point now raised by the petitioner is
in effect that the information does not charge an
offense. In the second place, as an appeal in a criminal
proceeding throws the whole case open for review, it
should have been the duty of the Court of Appeals to
correct such errors as might be found in the appealed
judgment, whether they are assigned or not.