Chavez, Neil Clark L.

Criminal Procedure – B
Pros. Aldrich Uayan

Case Digest

Title: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. EDGARDO V. ODTUHAN. July 17, 2013
Ponente: JUSTICE PERALTA
Name of Parties: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (Complainant), EDGARDO V. ODTUHAN
(Accused)
Ruling of Lower Court: The facts alleged in the information that there was a valid marriage
between respondent and Modina and without such marriage having been dissolved, respondent
contracted a second marriage with Alagon constitute the crime of bigamy. Furthermore, we held
that neither can the information be quashed on the ground that criminal liability has been
extinguished, because the declaration of nullity of the first marriage is not one of the modes of
extinguishing criminal liability.
Issues/Arguments of Parties:
Petitioner’s arguments: Accused has committed bigamy as stated in the information that the
elements of bigamy was present in that accused contracted a second marriage while the first
marriage is subsisting.
Respondent’s arguments: The RTC erred in failing to sustain defendant in his motion to quash
based on the ground that (1) the information do not charge a crime of bigamy because his first
marriage was null and void ab initio prior to the filing of the bigamy case, and (2) the criminal
liability was already extinguished upon the declaration of nullity of the previous marriage.
Ruling of Supreme Court: Complainant’s allegations are meritorious. A motion to quash
information is the mode by which an accused assails the validity of a criminal complaint or
information filed against him for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defects which are
apparent in the face of the information. The fundamental test in determining the sufficiency of the
material averments in an Information is whether or not the facts alleged therein, which are
hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the crime defined by law. A
motion to quash should be based on a defect in the information which is evident on its fact. Thus,
if the defect can be cured by amendment or if it is based on the ground that the facts charged do
not constitute an offense, the prosecution is given by the court the opportunity to correct the defect
by amendment unless the defect is quashed on the ground of extinction of criminal liability and
double jeopardy.
In this case, complainant sufficiently presented all the elements of the crime of bigamy in the facts
of the information, charging the accused of bigamy. Thus, the RTC did not err in denying accused’s
motion to quash based on the ground that there is no crime charged to him in the information
because his first marriage is already declared null and void ab initio and that the criminal liability
has already been extinguished by the declaration he obtained from court.
Relevance to Current Topic: A motion to quash is a mode prescribed by the Revised Rules in
Criminal Procedure which assails the information filed against the accused due to its defects. An
information filed in court must state in its facts all the elements, including its modifying
circumstances in order to properly inform the accused of the crime charged. Thus, a defect in the
information is subject to a motion to quash.