You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO V. ODTUHAN

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

2015-04-08
LEONEN, J.
(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense; (b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged; (c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused;. (d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so; (e) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form; (f) That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law; (g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished; (h) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and (i) That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent. In filing a motion to quash, the accused "assails the validity of a criminal complaint or information filed against him [or her] for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defects which are apparent in the face of the information."[136] If the accused avails himself or herself of a motion to quash, the accused "hypothetical[ly] admits the facts alleged in the information."[137] "Evidence aliunde or matters extrinsic from the information are not to be considered."[138]
2014-06-23
BERSAMIN, J.
Pursuant to Teves, the accused's conviction for bigamy is affirmed. The crime of bigamy was consummated from the moment he contracted the second marriage without his marriage to Socorro being first judicially declared null and void, because at the time of the celebration of the second marriage, his marriage to Socorro was still deemed valid and subsisting due to such marriage not being yet declared null and void by a court of competent jurisdiction.[30] "What makes a person criminally liable for bigamy," according to People v. Odtuhan:[31]