Scribd
Upload
1K views2 pages

Marbella-Bobis Vs Bobis - GR No. 138509

1) The respondent was charged with bigamy for contracting multiple marriages without having his first marriage annulled. He filed a motion to suspend the criminal bigamy case due to a pending civil case seeking to declare his first marriage null. 2) The court ruled that a subsequent civil case seeking annulment of a prior marriage is not a prejudicial question that can suspend a criminal bigamy case. 3) For bigamy charges, it is not for the accused to determine the validity of a prior marriage—only a court declaration of annulment allows remarriage without risk of bigamy prosecution. Filing an annulment case after bigamous marriages does not prevent prosecution.

Uploaded by

Nikay Serdeña
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views2 pages

Marbella-Bobis Vs Bobis - GR No. 138509

1) The respondent was charged with bigamy for contracting multiple marriages without having his first marriage annulled. He filed a motion to suspend the criminal bigamy case due to a pending civil case seeking to declare his first marriage null. 2) The court ruled that a subsequent civil case seeking annulment of a prior marriage is not a prejudicial question that can suspend a criminal bigamy case. 3) For bigamy charges, it is not for the accused to determine the validity of a prior marriage—only a court declaration of annulment allows remarriage without risk of bigamy prosecution. Filing an annulment case after bigamous marriages does not prevent prosecution.

Uploaded by

Nikay Serdeña
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Ronie C.

Cajayon
JD-1 WVSU
1st Sem AY 2021-2022

IMELDA MARBELLA-BOBIS, petitioner, vs.


ISAGANI D. BOBIS, respondent.
G.R. No. 138509 July 31, 2000
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
FACTS:
The respondent contracted a first marriage with one Maria Dulce B. Javier. Without said
marriage having been annulled, nullified or terminated, the same respondent contracted a second
marriage with petitioner Imelda Marbella-Bobis and allegedly a third marriage with a certain Julia
Sally Hernandez. An information for bigamy was filed against respondent

Sometime thereafter, respondent initiated a civil action for the judicial declaration of
absolute nullity of his first marriage on the ground that it was celebrated without a marriage
license. Respondent then filed a motion to suspend the proceedings in the criminal case for
bigamy invoking the pending civil case for nullity of the first marriage as a prejudicial
question to the criminal case. The trial judge granted the motion to suspend the criminal case.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied.

ISSUES:
Whether the subsequent filing of a civil action for declaration of nullity of a previous
marriage constitutes a prejudicial question to a criminal case for bigamy.

RULING:
The petition for review on certiorari was granted, reversing the decision of the lower court
and ordered the latter to immediately proceed with the criminal case.
A prejudicial question is one which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical
antecedent of the issue involved therein. It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate
from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the
accused.
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, considering
that the prosecution has not yet presented single evidence on the indictment or may not yet have
rested its case. A challenge of the allegations in the information on the ground of prejudicial
question is in effect a question on the merits of the criminal charge through a non-criminal suit.

Article 40 of the Family Code requires a prior judicial declaration of nullity of a previous
marriage before a party may remarry. The clear implication of this is that it is not for the parties,
particularly the accused, to determine the validity or invalidity of the marriage.

In the case at bar, respondent's clear intent is to obtain a judicial declaration of


nullity of his first marriage and thereafter to invoke that very same judgment to prevent his
prosecution for bigamy. Otherwise, all that an adventurous bigamist has to do is to disregard
Article 40 of the Family Code, contract a subsequent marriage and escape a bigamy charge by
simply claiming that the first marriage is void and that the subsequent marriage is equally void for
lack of a prior judicial declaration of nullity of the first. A party may even enter into a marriage
aware of the absence of a requisite - usually the marriage license - and thereafter contract a
subsequent marriage without obtaining a declaration of nullity of the first on the assumption that
the first marriage is void. Such scenario would render nugatory the provisions on bigamy. Only
when the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and so long as there
is no such declaration the presumption is that the marriage exists.

Thus, as ruled in Landicho v. Relova, he who contracts a second marriage before the
judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for
bigamy, and in such a case the criminal case may not be suspended on the ground of the
pendency of a civil case for declaration of nullity.

You might also like