Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    Bobis vs. Bobis

    Uploaded by

    ANTHONY SALVADICO
    The Supreme Court ruled that a subsequent civil case for the nullification of a previous marriage does not constitute a prejudicial question to a criminal case for bigamy. [1] The respondent contracted a first marriage in 1985 without annulling it before marrying the petitioner in 1996, and was charged with bigamy. [2] He filed a motion to suspend the criminal case while the civil case for nullity of the first marriage was pending, which was granted. [3] However, the Supreme Court found that per jurisprudence, one assumes the risk of prosecution for bigamy by marrying again before a court declares the first marriage null, so the criminal case could not be suspended.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bobis vs. Bobis

    Uploaded by

    ANTHONY SALVADICO
    52 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that a subsequent civil case for the nullification of a previous marriage does not constitute a prejudicial question to a criminal case for bigamy. [1] The respondent contracted a first marriage in 1985 without annulling it before marrying the petitioner in 1996, and was charged with bigamy. [2] He filed a motion to suspend the criminal case while the civil case for nullity of the first marriage was pending, which was granted. [3] However, the Supreme Court found that per jurisprudence, one assumes the risk of prosecution for bigamy by marrying again before a court declares the first marriage null, so the criminal case could not be suspended.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that a subsequent civil case for the nullification of a previous marriage does not constitute a prejudicial question to a criminal case for bigamy. [1] The respondent contracted a first marriage in 1985 without annulling it before marrying the petitioner in 1996, and was charged with bigamy. [2] He filed a motion to suspend the criminal case while the civil case for nullity of the first marriage was pending, which was granted. [3] However, the Supreme Court found that per jurisprudence, one assumes the risk of prosecution for bigamy by marrying again before a court declares the first marriage null, so the criminal case could not be suspended.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    52 views1 page

    Bobis vs. Bobis

    Uploaded by

    ANTHONY SALVADICO
    The Supreme Court ruled that a subsequent civil case for the nullification of a previous marriage does not constitute a prejudicial question to a criminal case for bigamy. [1] The respondent contracted a first marriage in 1985 without annulling it before marrying the petitioner in 1996, and was charged with bigamy. [2] He filed a motion to suspend the criminal case while the civil case for nullity of the first marriage was pending, which was granted. [3] However, the Supreme Court found that per jurisprudence, one assumes the risk of prosecution for bigamy by marrying again before a court declares the first marriage null, so the criminal case could not be suspended.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Imelda Marbella-Bobis vs. Isagani D.

    Bobis

    GR No. 138509, July 31, 2000

    FACTS:

    On October 21, 1985, respondent Isagani Bobis contracted a first marriage with Maria Dulce Javier.
    Without said marriage having been annulled, the same respondent contracted a second marriage with
    petitioner Imelda Marbella Bobis on January 25, 1996 and allegedly a third marriage with a certain Julia
    Sally Hernandez. Based on petitioner’s complaint-affidavit, 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. Hence, the petition for review on certiorari.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not 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:

    No.

    As ruled in Landicho vs. 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. In a recent case for concubinage, it was held that the pendency of a civil case for declaration of
    nullity of marriage is not a prejudicial question. This ruling applies here by analogy since both crimes
    presuppose the subsistence of a marriage.

    Per current jurisprudence, a marriage though void still needs a judicial declaration of such fact before
    any party can marry again; otherwise the second marriage will also be void. The reason is that, without a
    judicial declaration of its nullity, the first marriage is presumed to be subsisting. In the case at bar,
    respondent was for all legal intents and purposes regarded as a married man at the time he contracted
    his second marriage with petitioner. Against this legal backdrop, any decision in the civil action for
    nullity would not erase the fact that respondent entered into a second marriage during the subsistence
    of a first marriage. Thus, a decision in the civil case is not essential to the determination of the criminal
    charge. It is, therefore, not a prejudicial question. The respondent cannot be permitted to use his own
    malfeasance to defeat the criminal action against him.

    Wherefore, the petition is granted. The order of the Regional Trial Court is reversed and set aside; and
    the trial court is ordered to immediately proceed with Criminal Case.

    You might also like