Capili vs. People

A subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of a second marriage is not a valid defense against a charge of bigamy, as the crime is consummated at the time the second marriage is contracted during the subsistence of a prior valid marriage.

Petitioner James Walter P. Capili was legally married to Karla Y. Medina-Capili. During the subsistence of this first marriage, he contracted a second marriage with private respondent Shirley G. Tismo. This led to the filing of a criminal information for bigamy against him. Subsequently, a separate civil case was initiated, which resulted in the judicial declaration of the second marriage as null and void. The petitioner then sought the dismissal of the bigamy charge, arguing that the nullity of the second marriage removed the basis for the criminal case.

• Petitioner James Walter P. Capili was first married to Karla Y. Medina-Capili on September 3, 1999.
• On December 8, 1999, while his first marriage was still subsisting and had not been legally dissolved, petitioner contracted a second marriage with Shirley G. Tismo.
• On June 28, 2004, an Information was filed charging the petitioner with the crime of bigamy before the RTC of Pasig City.
• Petitioner filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings, citing a pending civil case for the declaration of nullity of his second marriage filed by his first wife, Karla, before the RTC of Antipolo City, which he claimed was a prejudicial question.
• The RTC of Antipolo City subsequently rendered a decision on December 1, 2004, declaring the second marriage between petitioner and Shirley G. Tismo null and void. This decision became final.
• Based on this civil court decision, petitioner filed a Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss the bigamy case, arguing that since the second marriage was declared void, there was no bigamy to speak of.

• The subsequent and final judicial declaration of nullity of the second marriage exculpates him from the charge of bigamy.
• The RTC of Pasig City correctly dismissed the criminal case based on the final decision of the RTC of Antipolo City declaring the second marriage void.
• The Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC's dismissal, as its ruling is contrary to established jurisprudence.
• The ruling in Tenebro v. Court of Appeals is an exception applicable only to cases where the ground for nullity is psychological incapacity, which is not the ground in his case.

• The issues raised in the civil case for nullity are not similar or intimately related to the issue in the criminal case for bigamy.
• The resolution of the civil case for nullity does not determine whether the criminal action for bigamy may proceed.
• A subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the second marriage does not bar the prosecution for bigamy, as the crime was already consummated when the second marriage was contracted during the subsistence of the first.

• Procedural Issues:
  • N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the second marriage is a valid ground for the dismissal of a criminal case for bigamy.

• Procedural:
  • N/A
• Substantive:
  • No, the subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the second marriage is not a ground for dismissing the criminal case for bigamy. The Supreme Court ruled that all the elements of bigamy were present when the Information was filed. The crime of bigamy is consummated at the very moment the offender contracts a second marriage while the first marriage is still subsisting. Criminal culpability attaches upon the commission of the offense, and liability continues until extinguished as provided by law. The Court emphasized that parties to a marriage cannot judge its nullity for themselves; this must be done by a competent court. Until a marriage is judicially declared void, it is presumed to exist. Therefore, one who contracts a second marriage before a judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy. The finality of the judicial declaration of nullity of the second marriage does not impede the filing or prosecution of the criminal charge for bigamy.

• Consummation of the Crime of Bigamy — The crime of bigamy is consummated on the celebration of the subsequent marriage without the previous one having been judicially declared null and void. In this case, the Court held that petitioner's criminal liability attached from the moment he contracted the second marriage on December 8, 1999, and the subsequent declaration of its nullity did not erase the crime that had already been committed.
• Presumption of Validity of Marriage — A marriage, even one which is void or voidable, is deemed valid until declared otherwise in a proper judicial proceeding. The Court applied this principle to state that individuals cannot decide for themselves that their marriage is void. So long as there is no judicial declaration of nullity, the marriage is presumed to exist, and contracting another marriage constitutes bigamy.

• "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."
• "Finally, 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."

• Jarillo v. People — Cited as a key precedent affirming that the crime of bigamy is consummated upon the celebration of the second marriage and that a subsequent judicial declaration of nullity is immaterial to the criminal charge.
• Mercado v. Tan — Cited for the enumeration of the elements of the crime of bigamy.
• Merlinda Cipriano Montañez v. Lourdes Tajolosa Cipriano — Referenced to support the ruling that what makes a person liable for bigamy is contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of a valid first marriage, and that the nullity of a marriage must be judicially declared.
• Teves v. People — Cited for the established rule that criminal culpability attaches at the moment the offense is committed.

• Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code — This article defines and penalizes the crime of bigamy. The Court analyzed the elements of the crime as defined in this provision to determine the petitioner's liability.
• Rule 45 of the Rules of Court — Mentioned as the procedural basis for the petitioner's appeal by Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court.