14. James Walter Capili vs People of the Philippines and Shirley Tismo-Capili G.R. No.

183805, July 03, 2013 By Renee Facts: Before the Pasig City Trial Court, James Walter Capili was charged with the crime of Bigamy. It was alleged that on or about December 8, 1999, James Walter, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously contracted a second marriage with Shirley G. Tismo. That on the date of the said second marriage, James Walters lawful marriage to Karla Y. Medina Capili contracted on September 3, 1999, was not yet legally dissolved nor annulled. A Motion to Suspend Proceedings was filed - and later granted since there is a pending civil case for declaration of nullity of the second marriage before the RTC of Antipolo City filed by Karla M. Capili, which served as a prejudicial question in the Bigamy case; that in the event that the marriage is declared null and void, it would exculpate James Walter from the charge of bigamy. The RTC of Antipolo City later declared the second marriage with Shirley as null and void, ruling that a subsequent marriage contracted by the husband during the lifetime of the legal wife is void from the beginning. Thereafter, the RTC of Pasig City granted petitioners Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss the bigamy case, in v iew of the declaratioj of nullity of the second marriage. The trial court submits that there is no more bigamy to speak of. Aggrieved, private respondent (Shirley Capili) appealed before the CA which reversed and set aside the RTCs decision. After his Motion for Reconsideration was denied, petitioner filed with the Supreme Court a 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: The Supreme Court ruled that the declaration of nullity of the second marriage is NOT a ground for the dismissal of the criminal case. ..it appears that all the elements of the crime of bigamy were present when the Information was filed. (1) the offender has been legally married; (2) the marriage has not been legally dissolved.. (3) that he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and (4) that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. The Court declared that, 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, petitioners 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. The outcome of the civil case for annulment of petitioners marriage had no bearing upon the determination of his 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. Further, 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. 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 petitioners second marriage does not impede the filing of a criminal charge for bigamy against him.