ATTY. MARIETTA D.

ZAMORANOS, Petitioner,

VS.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and

SAMSON R. PACASUM, SR., Respondents.

G.R. NO. 193902

x--------------------------------------------------x

ATTY. MARIETTA D. ZAMORANOS, Petitioner,

VS

SAMSON R. PACASUM, SR., Respondent.

G.R. No. 193908

x--------------------------------------------------x

SAMSON R. PACASUM, SR., Petitioner,

VS

ATTY. MARIETTA D. ZAMORANOS, Respondent.

G.R. No. 194075

FACTS:

Petitioner Marietta Zamoranos is a Muslim convert who first married Jesus de Guzman
in Islamic rites and later on in civil rites. A little after a year the two obtained a divorce by Talaq
in 1983 which was confirmed by the Shari’a Circuit District Court in 1992 on grounds that she
was given the authority to exercise Talaq, the husband did not object to the divorce, and they
were both Muslims at the time of their wedding.

In 1989 she married again, to Samson Pacasum Sr under Islamic Rites and under Civil
Rites and had 3 children. The two fell apart and had a battle for custody for their children which
Zamoranos won (visitorial rights only for Pacasum). Following this Pacasum filed cases against
Zamoranos on grounds that: 1) her previous marriage was still in effect when they got married
making their marriage bigamous and “void ab initio” thus custody of children and her share in
the community property and inheritance from pacasum should be forfeited; 2) criminal
complaint for bigamy under Art 349 of the RPC; 3) disbarment of Zamoranos before the Civil
Service Commission and the Integrated Bar of the Ph & Bureau of Finance Revenue Integrity
Protection Service.

In the case regarding the Declaration of a Void marriage, Pacasum lost the case for lack
of jurisdiction of the RTC Branch 2, Iligan City since they were both Muslims at the time of their
wedding. The lower Court held that PD no 1083/Code of the Muslim Personal laws -the Talaq
entered into by Zamoranos and her first husband dissolved their marriage and they can
therefore remarry and the second marriage is merely ceremonial, thus does not affect the
first marriage. The cases for disbarment before the Civil Service Commission and the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines and Bureau of Finance Revenue Integrity Protection Service were also
later on dismissed.

Office of the City Prosecutor of Iligan found evidence to hold Zamoranos guilty of
bigamy 2005; Information for Bigamy was filed against Zamoranos in a separate case in 2006
Zamoranos filed a motion of reconsideration, the new case got temporarily suspended, and
eventually the City Prosecutor of Ozamis dismissed charges of Bigamy against her.

Pacasum then filed for reconsideration which was denied. He then filed a Petition for
Review before the Office of the Secretary of Justice of his denied petition; the Secretary of
Justice then granted his petition and reversed the ruling of the City Prosecutor. Zamoranos then
filed an Omnibus motion and Supplement to the Urgent Omnibus motion but was denied by the
Secretary of Justice. Her second motion for reconsideration was also denied.

Zamoranos then filed a motion to quash the information arguing that RTC of Iligan City
had no jurisdiction over the person and offense charged, but was denied. Zamoranos filed a
petition for certiorari for the nullification and reversal of the December 21, 2009 Order of the
RTC, Branch 6, Iligan City. The CA denied the motion as well. Zamoranos goes to the SC for
Certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion.

Zamoranos posits that the CA erred in ignoring the conclusions of the RTC that she is: 1)
a Muslim and married to another Muslim under Islamic Rites; 2) Their civil rites ceremony did
not affect their first marriage that is within the Code of Muslim Personal Laws; 3) her first
divorce by Talaq already severed their ties; 4) marriages and divorce of Muslims is under the
jurisdiction of Shari’a Courts 5) Zamoranos married a second time with another Muslim, under
Islamic Rites; and 6) regular courts then have no jurisdiction, only Shari’a Circuit Court.

Issues:
1. Whether the RTCs, Branch 2, Iligan City and the CAs separate factual findings that Zamoranos
is a Muslim are correct.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Zamoranos’ petition for certiorari.

Ruling1:

On the peripheral issue raised by Zamoranos on the conclusiveness of judgment made

by the RTC, Branch 2, Iligan City, which heard the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage
filed by Pacasum on the ground that his marriage to Zamoranos was a bigamous marriage, the
decision of which is already final and executory, the RTC, Branch 2, Iligan City, dismissed the
petition for declaration of nullity of marriage for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter by
the regular civil courts. The RTC, Branch 2, Iligan City, declared that it was the Sharia Circuit
Court which had jurisdiction over the subject matter thereof. The lower court simply dismissed
the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage since it found that the Sharia Circuit Court had
jurisdiction to hear the dissolution of the marriage of Muslims who wed under Islamic rites.

The SC said the RTC, Branch 6, Iligan City, which heard the case for Bigamy, should have
taken cognizance of the categorical declaration of the RTC, Branch 2, Iligan City, that Zamoranos
is a Muslim, whose first marriage to another Muslim, De Guzman, was valid and recognized
under Islamic law. In fact, the same court further declared that Zamoranos divorce from De
Guzman validly severed their marriage ties. As matter of fact, Zamoranos presented strong
evidence to this effect; declarations of three persons in authority, two of whom are officers of
the court, it is evident that Zamoranos is a Muslim who married another Muslim, De Guzman,
under Islamic rites. Accordingly, the nature, consequences, and incidents of such marriage are
governed by P.D. No. 1083. These are: 1) Affidavit of Confirmation executed by the Ustadz,
Abdullah Ha-Ja-Utto, who solemnized the marriage of Zamoranos and De Guzman under Islamic
rites; 2)Certification issued by Judge Kaudri L. Jainul (Judge Jainul), which confirmed the divorce
agreement between Zamoranos and De Guzman; and 3) Affidavit executed by Judge Uyag P.
Usman (Judge Usman), former Clerk of Court of Judge Jainul at the time of the confirmation of
Zamoranos and De Guzmans divorce agreement by the latter.

True, the Sharia Circuit Court is not vested with jurisdiction over offenses penalized
under the RPC. Nonetheless, it must be pointed out that even in criminal cases, the trial court
must have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the offense. In this case, the charge of Bigamy
hinges on Pacasums claim that Zamoranos is not a Muslim, and her marriage to De Guzman was
governed by civil law. This is obviously far from the truth, and the fact of Zamoranos Muslim
status should have been apparent to both lower courts, the RTC, Branch 6, Iligan City, and the
CA.
The subject matter of the offense of Bigamy dwells on the accused contracting a second
marriage while a prior valid one still subsists and has yet to be dissolved. At the very least, the
RTC, Branch 6, Iligan City, should have suspended the proceedings until Pacasum had litigated
the validity of Zamoranos and De Guzmans marriage before the Sharia Circuit Court and had
successfully shown that it had not been dissolved despite the divorce by talaq entered into by
Zamoranos and De Guzman.
Zamoranos was correct in filing the petition for certiorari before the CA when her liberty
was already in jeopardy with the continuation of the criminal proceedings against her.

Ruling 2:

The Supreme Court held that Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Zamoranos’ petition
for certiorari. As a rule, certiorari lies when: (1) a tribunal, board, or officer exercises judicial or
quasi-judicial functions;(2) the tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess of its or
his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction;
and (3) there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law.
The writ of certiorari serves to keep an inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction
or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack
of jurisdiction, or to relieve parties from arbitrary acts of courts—acts which courts have no
power or authority in law to perform.

The denial of a motion to quash, as in the case at bar, is not appealable. It is an

interlocutory order which cannot be the subject of an appeal. Moreover, it is settled that a
special civil action for certiorari and prohibition is not the proper remedy to assail the denial of
a motion to quash information. The established rule is that, when such an adverse interlocutory
order is rendered, the remedy is not to resort forthwith to certiorari or prohibition, but to
continue with the case in due course and, when an unfavourable verdict is handed down, to
take an appeal in the manner authorized by law.

However, on a number of occasions, the high Court recognized that in certain situations,
certiorari is considered an appropriate remedy to assail an interlocutory order, specifically the
denial of a motion to quash.
a. when the court issued the order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion
b. when the interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would
not afford adequate and expeditious relief
c. in the interest of a "more enlightened and substantial justice";
d. to promote public welfare and public policy
 e. when the cases "have attracted nationwide attention, making it essential to proceed
with dispatch in the consideration thereof.

The first four of the foregoing exceptions occur in this instance.

Contrary to the asseverations of the CA, the RTC, Branch 6, Iligan City, committed an
error of jurisdiction, not simply an error of judgment, in denying Zamoranos’ motion to quash.

The petition in G.R. No. 193902 is GRANTED. The petition in G.R. No. 194075 is DENIED.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 03525-MIN is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, the Motion to Quash the Information in Criminal Case No. 06-12305 for Bigamy is
GRANTED.