Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

IMELDA MARBELLA-BOBIS v. ISAGANI D. BOBIS

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 207406 2016-01-13	NORBERTO A. VITANGCOL v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
Should the requirement of judicial declaration of nullity be removed as an element of the crime of bigamy, Article 349 of Revised Penal Code becomes useless. "[A]ll that an adventurous bigamist has to do is to ... 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."[60] Further, "[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 judicial declaration of nullity of the first on the assumption that the first marriage is void."[61]
	GR No. 200233 2015-07-15	LEONILA G. SANTIAGO v. PEOPLE SERENO, C.J.
Jurisprudence clearly requires that for the accused to be convicted of bigamy, the second or subsequent marriage must have all the essential requisites for validity.[25] If the accused wants to raise the nullity of the marriage, he or she can do it as a matter of defense during the presentation of evidence in the trial proper of the criminal case.[26] In this case, petitioner has consistently[27] questioned below the validity of her marriage to Santos on the ground that marriages celebrated without the essential requisite of a marriage license are void ab initio.[28]
	GR NO. 134887 2006-07-27	PHILIPPINE AGILA SATELLITE v. SEC. JOSEFINA TRINIDAD LICHAUCO CARPIO MORALES, J.
Section 7. Elements of prejudicial question. - The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. The rationale for the principle of prejudicial question is that although it does not conclusively resolve the guilt or innocence of the accused, it tests the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint or information in order to sustain the further prosecution of the criminal case.[12] Hence, the need for its prior resolution before further proceedings in the criminal action may be had.
	GR NOS. 162748-50 2006-03-28	PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
While the resolution of Civil Case No. 2180-95-C by the trial court of the issues raised therein do not conclusively determine the guilt or innocence of private respondents, still it puts to test the sufficiency of the allegations in the informations, particularly whether further prosecution of the criminal cases may be sustained. [37] A challenge to the allegations in the informations on account of the issues posed for resolution in the trial court, which are deemed prejudicial questions, is in effect a question on the merits of the criminal charge through a non-criminal suit. [38]
	GR NO. 165842 2005-11-29	EDUARDO P. MANUEL v. PEOPLE CALLEJO, SR., J.
In the present case, the prosecution proved that the petitioner was married to Gaña in 1975, and such marriage was not judicially declared a nullity; hence, the marriage is presumed to subsist.[36] The prosecution also proved that the petitioner married the private complainant in 1996, long after the effectivity of the Family Code.
	GR No. 159218 2004-03-30	SALVADOR S. ABUNADO v. PEOPLE YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The general rule is that a defective information cannot support a judgment of conviction unless the defect was cured by evidence during the trial and no objection appears to have been raised.[12] It should be remembered that bigamy can be successfully prosecuted provided all its elements concur two of which are a previous marriage and a subsequent marriage which possesses all the requisites for validity.[13] All of these have been sufficiently established by the prosecution during the trial. Notably, petitioner failed to object to the alleged defect in the Information during the trial and only raised the same for the first time on appeal before the Court of Appeals.
	GR No. 145226 2004-02-06	LUCIO MORIGO Y CACHO v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
For the respondent, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) submits that good faith in the instant case is a convenient but flimsy excuse. The Solicitor General relies upon our ruling in Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis,[18] which held that bigamy can be successfully prosecuted provided all the elements concur, stressing that under Article 40[19] of the Family Code, a judicial declaration of nullity is a must before a party may re-marry. Whether or not the petitioner was aware of said Article 40 is of no account as everyone is presumed to know the law. The OSG counters that petitioner's contention that he was in good faith because he relied on the divorce decree of the Ontario court is negated by his act of filing Civil Case No. 6020, seeking a judicial declaration of nullity of his marriage to Lucia.
	GR No. 127406 2000-11-27	OFELIA P. TY v. VS.CA QUISUMBING, J.
At the outset, we must note that private respondent's first and second marriages contracted in 1977 and 1979, respectively, are governed by the provisions of the Civil Code. The present case differs significantly from the recent cases of Bobis v. Bobis[7] and Mercado v. Tan,[8] both involving a criminal case for bigamy where the bigamous marriage was contracted during the effectivity of the Family Code,[9] under which a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage is clearly required.