This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-10-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Abunado v. People,[27] we held that what is required for the charge of bigamy to prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at the time the second marriage is contracted.[28] Even if the accused eventually obtained a declaration that his first marriage was void ab initio, the point is, both the first and the second marriage were subsisting before the first marriage was annulled.[29] | |||||
|
2009-09-29 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The foregoing ruling had been reiterated in Abunado v. People,[8] where it was held thus: The subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage was immaterial because prior to the declaration of nullity, the crime had already been consummated. Moreover, petitioner's assertion would only delay the prosecution of bigamy cases considering that an accused could simply file a petition to declare his previous marriage void and invoke the pendency of that action as a prejudicial question in the criminal case. We cannot allow that. | |||||