Camilo V People

G.R. No.
183805 July 3, 2013
JAMES WALTER P. CAPILI, PETITIONER, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SHIRLEY TISMO-CAPILI,
RESPONDENTS
Facts:
On June 28, 2004, petitioner was charged with the crime of bigamy before the Regional Trial Court of
Pasig City:
On or about December 8, 1999, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
accused being previously united in lawful marriage with Karla Y. Medina-Capili and without said
marriage having been legally dissolved or annulled, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously contract a second marriage with Shirley G. Tismo, to the damage and prejudice of the latter.
Petitioner thereafter filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings alleging that: (1) there is a pending civil case
for declaration of nullity of the second marriage before the RTC of Antipolo City filed by Karla Y. Medina-
Capili; (2) in the event that the marriage is declared null and void, it would exculpate him from the
charge of bigamy; and (3) the pendency of the civil case for the declaration of nullity of the second
marriage serves as a prejudicial question in the instant criminal case.
Arraignment and pre-trial were reset by the RTC.
RTC Antipolo: rendered decision declaring the voidness or incipient invalidity of the second marriage
between petitioner and private respondent on the ground that a subsequent marriage contracted by the
husband during the lifetime of the legal wife is void from the beginning.
Petitioner filed Manifestation and Motion (to dismiss).
RTC Pasig granted.
Private prosecutor opposed.
RTC: this Court is of the humble opinion that there is merit on the Motion to dismiss filed by the accused
as it appears that the second marriage between James Walter P. Capili and Shirley G. Tismo had already
been nullified by the Regional Trial Court
Aggrieved, private respondent filed an appeal before the CA.
CA: reversed.
Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration against said decision, but the same was denied in a
Resolution.
Petitioner filed the present petition for review on certiorari alleging, among others, that:
THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS TO DISREGARD EXISTING JURISPRUDENCE
PRONOUNCED BY THIS HONORABLE SUPREME COURT AND TO REVERSE THE ORDER; THE COURT OF
APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN
HOLDING THAT THE DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE IS ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS BIGAMOUS
IN NATURE, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH FINDINGS OR FACTS ON WHICH IT IS BASED IN
VIOLATION OF ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 14 OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION; THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR
ABANDONING EXISTING JURISPRUDENCE
Issue: Whether or not the subsequent declaration of nullity of the second marriage is a ground for
dismissal of the criminal case for bigamy
Ruling:
No.
The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract a second or
subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent
spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper
proceedings. The elements of the crime of bigamy, therefore, are: (1) the offender has been legally
married; (2) the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the
absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code; (3) that he contracts a
second or subsequent marriage; and (4) that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential
requisites for validity.
It is undisputed that a second marriage between petitioner and private respondent was contracted on
December 8, 1999 during the subsistence of a valid first marriage between petitioner and Karla Y.
Medina-Capili contracted on September 3, 1999. Notably, the RTC of Antipolo City itself declared the
bigamous nature of the second marriage between petitioner and private respondent. Thus, the
subsequent judicial declaration of the second marriage for being bigamous in nature does not bar the
prosecution of petitioner for the crime of bigamy. Jurisprudence is replete with cases holding that the
accused may still be charged with the crime of bigamy, even if there is a subsequent declaration of the
nullity of the second marriage, so long as the first marriage was still subsisting when the second
marriage was celebrated.
The Court recently upheld the ruling in the aforementioned case and ruled that what makes a person
criminally liable for bigamy is when he contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the
subsistence of a valid first marriage. It further held that the parties to the marriage should not be
permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted to the judgment of
competent courts and 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. Therefore, he who
contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of the first marriage assumes the risk of
being prosecuted for bigamy.
It is a settled rule that the criminal culpability attaches to the offender upon the commission of the
offense, and from that instant, liability appends to him until extinguished as provided by law. It is clear
then that the crime of bigamy was committed by petitioner from the time he contracted the second
marriage with private respondent. Thus, the finality of the judicial declaration of nullity of petitioner’s
second marriage does not impede the filing of a criminal charge for bigamy against him.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated February 1, 2008 and
Resolution dated July 24, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 30444 are hereby AFFIRMED.

Camilo V People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Camilo V People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Camilo V People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

183805 July 3, 2013

Arraignment and pre-trial were reset by the RTC.

Petitioner filed Manifestation and Motion (to dismiss).

RTC Pasig granted.

Private prosecutor opposed.

Aggrieved, private respondent filed an appeal before the CA.

You might also like