Capili vs. People

James Walter P. Capili, petitioner,
vs.
People of the Philippines and Shirley Tismo-Capili, respondents.

G.R. No. 183805
July 3, 2013

FACTS:

James Capili was charged with the crime of bigamy before the RTC of Pasig City. James was previously married to Karla Medina-­Capili, and without said marriage being legally dissolved, contracted a second marriage with Shirley Tismo.

James 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.

Meanwhile, the RTC of Antipolo declared the voidness or invalidity of the second marriage on the ground that the subsequent marriage contracted by the husband during the lifetime of the legal wife is void from the beginning.

James then filed a Motion to Dismiss the criminal case of bigamy, which the RTC granted. Private respondent filed an appeal in the CA, which reversed the RTC’s decision. James then filed a MR, but the same was denied. Thus, this petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the subsequent declaration of nullity of the second marriage is a ground for dismissal of the criminal case for bigamy.

HELD:

No, the subsequent declaration of nullity of the second marriage is not a ground for dismissal of the criminal case for bigamy. The elements of the crime of bigamy 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. In the present case, all the elements of the crime of bigamy were present.

It is undisputed that the second marriage was contracted on December 8, 1999 during the subsistence of a valid first marriage contracted on September 3, 1999. Notably, the RTC of Antipolo City itself declared the bigamous nature of the second marriage. 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 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. The outcome of the civil case for annulment of petitioner’s marriage to private complainant had no bearing upon the determination of petitioner’s innocence or guilt in the criminal case for bigamy, because all that is required for the charge of bigamy to prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at the time the second marriage is contracted. 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.