IRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 183824 : December 08, 2010]

MYRNA P. ANTON, PTITIONR, VS. !O R. "RONI!!A, RSPONDNT.
D # I S I O N
PR$, J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to nullify
and set aside the issuances of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. S !o. "#$%&4' to wit( )a* the
Resolution
+",
dated $- April $##% dis.issing the petition for certiorari under Rule /5' which assailed
the trial court0s 1rders
+$,
dated $# Septe.2er $##3 and / 4ece.2er $##3 in Cri.inal Case !o. #3-
#-#3-C56 for Biga.y7 and )2* the Resolution
+&,
dated "% 8uly $##% denying the .otion for
reconsideration of the first resolution.
9he trial court :uashed the ;nfor.ation on the ground that the ele.ents of Biga.y were rendered
inco.plete after herein respondent presented docu.ents to prove a fact' which the court 2elieved
would negate the allegation in the ;nfor.ation that there was a first valid .arriage. 9he evidence
presented showed that respondent later o2tained a <udicial declaration of nullity of the first union
following the cele2ration of a su2se:uent .arriage.
The Antecedents
1n "$ 6arch $##3' herein petitioner 6yrna . Antone e=ecuted an Affidavit-Co.plaint
+4,
for Biga.y
against >eo R. Beronilla 2efore the 1ffice of the City rosecutor of asay City. She alleged that her
.arriage with respondent in "-3% had not yet 2een legally dissolved when the latter contracted a
second .arriage with one Cecile 6aguillo in "--".
1n $" 8une $##3' the prosecution filed the corresponding ;nfor.ation
+5,
2efore the Regional 9rial
Court' asay City. 9he case was docketed as Cri.inal Case !o. #3-#-#3-C56 and raffled to Branch
""5.
ending the setting of the case for arraign.ent' herein respondent .oved to :uash the ;nfor.ation
on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense.
+/,
?e infor.ed the court that his
.arriage with petitioner was declared null and void 2y the Regional 9rial Court' Branch "/' !aval'
Biliran on $/ April $##37
+3,
that the decision 2eca.e final and e=ecutory on "5 6ay $##
+3,
7
+%,
and
that such decree has already 2een registered with the 6unicipal Civil Registrar on "$ 8une $##3.
+-,

?e argued that since the .arriage had 2een declared null and void fro. the 2eginning' there was
actually no first .arriage to speak of. A2sent a first valid .arriage' the facts alleged in the
;nfor.ation do not constitute the cri.e of 2iga.y.
+"#,
;n its co..ent@opposition to the .otion'
+"",
the prosecution' through herein petitioner' .aintained
that the respondent co..itted an act which has all the essential re:uisites of 2iga.y. 9he
prosecution pointed out that the .arriage of petitioner and respondent on "% !ove.2er "-3% has
not yet 2een severed when he contracted a second .arriage on "/ 5e2ruary "--"' for which
reason' 2iga.y has already 2een co..itted 2efore the court declared the first .arriage null and
void on $3 April $##3.
+"$,
9he prosecution also invoked the rulings of the Supre.e Court holding
that a .otion to :uash is a hypothetical ad.ission of the facts alleged in the infor.ation' and that
facts contrary thereto are .atters of defense which .ay 2e raised only during the presentation of
evidence.
+"&,
After a hearing on the .otion'
+"4,
the court :uashed the ;nfor.ation.
+"5,
Applying Morigo v. People'
+"/,
it ruled(
?ence' contrary to what was stated in the ;nfor.ation' accused Beronilla was actually never legally
.arried to 6yrna Antone. 1n this score alone' the first ele.ent appears to 2e .issing.
5urther.ore' the state.ent in the definition of Biga.y which reads A2efore the first .arriage has
2een legally dissolvedA clearly conte.plates that the first .arriage .ust at least 2e annulla2le or
voida2le 2ut definitely not void' as in this case. === +;,n a si.ilar case' +the Supre.e Court, had
the occasion to state(
9he first ele.ent of 2iga.y as a cri.e re:uires that the accused .ust have 2een legally .arried.
But in this case' legally speaking' the petitioner was never .arried to >ucia Barrete. 9hus' there is
no first .arriage to speak of. Bnder the principle of retroactivity of a .arriage 2eing declared
void ab initio' the two were never .arried Afro. the 2eginning.A === 9he e=istence and the validity
of the first .arriage 2eing an essential ele.ent of the cri.e of 2iga.y' it is 2ut logical that a
conviction for said offense cannot 2e sustained where there is no first .arriage to speak of. ===
+"3,
9he prosecution' through herein petitioner' .oved for reconsideration of the said 1rder
+"%,
on the
ground' a.ong others' that the facts and the attending circu.stances in Morigo are not on all fours
with the case at 2ar. ;t likewise pointed out that' in Mercado v. Tan'
+"-,
this Court has already
settled that A)a* declaration of the a2solute nullity of a .arriage is now e=plicitly re:uired either as
a cause of action or a ground for defense.A
+$#,
;n its 1rder of / 4ece.2er $##3'
+$",
the court denied the .otion for reconsideration stating
thatMercado has already 2een superseded 2y Morigo.
;n the interi.' in a etition for Relief fro. 8udg.ent
+$$,
2efore the Regional 9rial Court of !aval'
Biliran' petitioner :uestioned the validity of the proceedings in the petition for the declaration of
nullity of .arriage in Civil Case !o. B-"$-# on 5 1cto2er $##3. 1n $4 6arch $##%' the court set
aside its 4ecision of $/ April $##3 declaring the .arriage of petitioner with respondent null and
void' and re:uired herein petitioner )respondent in Civil Case !o. B-"$-#* to file her Aanswer to the
co.plaint.A
+$&,
1n $" 8uly $##%' the court 4;S6;SSC4 the petition for nullity of .arriage for failure
of herein respondent )plaintiff in Civil Case !o. B-"$-#* to su2.it his pre-trial 2rief.
+$4,
Respondent'
however' challenged the orders issued 2y the court 2efore the Court of Appeals.
+$5,
9he .atter is
still pending resolution thereat.
+$/,
6eanwhile' in a petition for certiorari under Rule /5 of the Rules of Court filed on $/ 6arch $##%
2efore the Court of Appeals'
+$3,
herein petitioner alleged that the asay City trial court acted without
or in e=cess of <urisdiction or with grave a2use of discretion a.ounting to lack or e=cess of
<urisdiction when it dis.issed the case of 2iga.y and denied her .otion for reconsideration.
;n its Resolution of $- April $##%' the Court of Appeals dis.issed the petition stating that(
9he present petition === is fatally infir. in for. and su2stance for the following reasons(
". 9he verification is defective as it does not include the assurance that the allegations in the
petition are 2ased on authentic records.
$. Since the petition assails the trial court0s dis.issal of the cri.inal infor.ation for 2iga.y filed
against private respondent >eo Beronilla' the petition' if at all warranted' should 2e filed in 2ehalf of
the eople of the hilippines 2y the 1ffice of the Solicitor General' 2eing its statutory counsel in all
appealed cri.inal cases.
&. 9here is a violation of the rule on dou2le <eopardy as the dis.issal of the su2<ect cri.inal case is
tanta.ount to an ac:uittal 2ased on the trial court0s finding that the first essential ele.ent of
2iga.y' which is a first valid .arriage contracted 2y private respondent is wanting. 9here is no
clear showing in the petition that the dis.issal was tainted with ar2itrariness which violated
petitioner0s right to due process. !ota2ly' petitioner filed her co..ent@opposition to private
respondent0s .otion to :uash 2efore the trial court issued its 1rder dated Septe.2er $#' $##3
dis.issing the infor.ation. ?ence' if there is no denial of due process' there can 2e no grave a2use
of discretion that would .erit the application of the e=ception to the dou2le <eopardy rule.
+$%,
1n "% 8uly $##%' the Court of Appeals denied respondent0s 6otion for Reconsideration of the
afore:uoted Resolution for lack of .erit.
+$-,
?ence' this petition.
+&#,
Our Ruling
I
De are convinced that this petition should 2e given due course despite the defect in the pleading
and the :uestion of legal standing to 2ring the action.
9he Rules of Court provides that a pleading re:uired to 2e verified which lacks a proper verification
shall 2e treated as unsigned pleading.
+&",
9his' notwithstanding' we have' in a nu.2er of cases' opted to rela= the rule in order that the ends
of justice may be served.
+&$,
9he defect 2eing .erely for.al and not <urisdictional' we ruled that the
court .ay nevertheless order the correction of the pleading' or even act on the pleading Aif the
attending circu.stances are such that === strict co.pliance with the rule .ay 2e dispensed with in
order that the ends of <ustice === .ay 2e served.A
+&&,
At any rate' a pleading is re:uired to 2e
verified only to ensure that it was prepared in good faith' and that the allegations were true and
correct and not 2ased on .ere speculations.
+&4,
9here is likewise no dispute that it is the 1ffice of the Solicitor General )1SG* which has the
authority to represent the govern.ent in a <udicial proceeding 2efore the Court of Appeals. 9he
Ad.inistrative Code specifically defined its powers and functions to read' a.ong others(
Sec. &5. Powers and Functions. - 9he 1ffice of the Solicitor General shall represent the
Govern.ent of the hilippines' its agencies and instru.entalities and its officials and agents in any
litigation' proceeding' investigation or .atter re:uiring the services of lawyers. === ;t shall have the
following specific powers and functions(
)"*Represent the Govern.ent in the Supre.e Court and the Court of Appeals in all cri.inal
proceedings7 represent the Govern.ent and its officers in the Supre.e Court' Court of Appeals' and
all other courts or tri2unals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Govern.ent or
any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party.
+&5,
As an e=ception to this rule' the Solicitor General is allowed to(
)%* 4eputiEe legal officers of govern.ent depart.ents' 2ureaus' agencies and offices to assist the
Solicitor General and appear or represent the Govern.ent in cases involving their respective offices'
2rought 2efore the courts and e=ercise supervision and control over such legal officers with respect
to such cases.
+&/,
9hus' in Republic v. Partisala,
+&3,
we held that the su..ary dis.issal of an action in the na.e of the
Repu2lic of the hilippines' when not initiated 2y the Solicitor General' is in order.
+&%,
!ot even the
appearance of the confor.ity of the pu2lic prosecutor in a petition for certiorari would suffice
2ecause the authority of the City rosecutor or his assistant to represent the eople of the
hilippines is li.ited to the proceedings in the trial court.
+&-,
De took e=ceptions' however' and gave due course to a nu.2er of actions even when the respective
interests of the govern.ent were not properly represented 2y the 1ffice of the Solicitor General.
;n Labaro v. Panay'
+4#,
this Court dealt with a si.ilar defect in the following .anner(
;t .ust' however' 2e stressed that if the pu2lic prosecution is aggrieved 2y any order or ruling of
the trial <udge in a cri.inal case' the 1SG' and not the prosecutor' .ust 2e the one to :uestion the
order or ruling 2efore us.
+4",
===
!evertheless' %&'ce ()e c)*++e',e- or-er *..ec(% ()e &'(ere%( o. ()e S(*(e or ()e /+*&'(&..
Peo/+e o. ()e P)&+&//&'e%, 0e o/(e- 'o( (o -&%m&%% ()e /e(&(&o' o' ()&% (ec)'&c*+ ,ro1'-.
;nstead' we re:uired the 1SG to co..ent on the petition' as we had done 2efore in so.e cases.
+4$,

;n light of its Co..ent' we rule that the 1SG has ratified and adopted as its own the instant
petition for the eople of the hilippines.!mphasis supplied."
;n #ooperative $evelopment %uthority v. $olefil %grarian Reform &eneficiaries #ooperative, 'nc.,
+4&,
without re:uiring the 1ffice of the Solicitor General to file a co..ent on the petition' this Court
deter.ined the .erits of the case involving a novel issue on the nature and scope of <urisdiction of
the#ooperative $evelopment %uthority to settle cooperative disputes as well as the 2attle 2etween
two )$* factions concerning the .anage.ent of the 4olefil Agrarian Refor. Beneficiaries
Cooperative' ;nc. )4ARBC;* Athat inevita2ly threatens the very e=istence of one of the country0s
.a<or cooperatives.A
+44,
And' lest we defeat the ends of <ustice' we opt to look into the .erit of the instant petition even
a2sent the i.pri.atur of the Solicitor General. After all' Afor <ustice to prevail' the scales .ust
2alance' for <ustice is not to 2e dispensed for the accused alone.A
+45,
9o 2orrow the words of then
8ustice 6inita F. Chico-!aEario in another case where the dis.issal of a cri.inal case pending with
the trial court was sought(
+9,he task of the pillars of the cri.inal <ustice syste. is to preserve our de.ocratic society under
the rule of law' ensuring that all those who +co.e or are 2rought to court, are afforded a fair
opportunity to present their side+s,. === 9he State' like any other litigant' is entitled to its day in
court' and to a reasona2le opportunity to present its case.
+4/,
;;
De cannot agree with the Court of Appeals that the filing of this petition is in violation of the
respondent0s right against dou2le <eopardy on the theory that he has already 2een practically
ac:uitted when the trial court :uashed the ;nfor.ation.
Dell settled is the rule that for <eopardy to attach' the following re:uisites .ust concur(
)"* there is a co.plaint or infor.ation or other for.al charge sufficient in for. and su2stance to
sustain a conviction7 )$* the sa.e is filed 2efore a court of co.petent <urisdiction7 )&* there is a
valid arraign.ent or plea to the charges7 and )4* the accused is convicted or ac:uitted or the case
is otherwise dis.issed or ter.inated without his e=press consent.
+43,
9he third and fourth re:uisites are clearly wanting in the instant case as )a* respondent has not yet
entered his plea to the charge when he filed the 6otion to Guash the ;nfor.ation' and )$* the case
was dis.issed not .erely with his consent 2ut' in fact' at his instance.
+4%,
De reiterate' ti.e and again' that <eopardy does not attach in favor of the accused on account of an
order sustaining a .otion to :uash.
+4-,
6ore specifically' the granting of a .otion to :uash anchored
on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense is Anot a 2ar to another
prosecution for the sa.e offense.A
+5#,
9hus(
;t will 2e noted that the order sustaining the .otion to :uash the co.plaint against petitioner was
2ased on Su2section )a* of Section $ of Rule ""3 of the Rules of Court - that the facts charged in
the co.plaint do not constitute an offense. ;f this is so then the dis.issal of said co.plaint will not
2e a 2ar to another prosecution for the sa.e offense' for it is provided in Section % of Rule ""3 of
the Rules of Court +now Section / of the $### Rules of Cri.inal rocedure, that an order sustaining
the .otion to :uash is not a 2ar to another prosecution for the sa.e offense unless the .otion was
2ased on the grounds specified in Section $' Su2section+s, )f* and )h* of this rule +now
su2stantially reproduced in Section &' Su2sections )g* and )i* of the $### Rules of Cri.inal
rocedure, ===.
+5",
;;;
De now deter.ine the .erit of the petition HI did the trial court act without or in e=cess of
<urisdiction or grave a2use of discretion when it sustained respondent0s .otion to :uash on the
2asis of a fact contrary to those alleged in the infor.ationJ
etitioner .aintains that the trial court did so 2ecause the .otion was a hypothetical ad.ission of
the facts alleged in the infor.ation and any evidence contrary thereto can only 2e presented as a
.atter of defense during trial.
Consistent with e=isting <urisprudence' we agree with the petitioner.
De define a .otion to :uash an ;nfor.ation as HI
the .ode 2y which an accused assails the validity of a cri.inal co.plaint or ;nfor.ation filed
against hi. for insufficiency on its face in point of law' or for defects which are apparent in the face
of the ;nfor.ation.
+5$,
9his .otion is Aa hypothetical ad.ission of the facts alleged in the ;nfor.ation'A
+5&,
for which
reason' the court cannot consider allegations contrary to those appearing on the face of the
infor.ation.
+54,
As further elucidated in #ru(, )r. v. #ourt of %ppeals*
+55,
;t is a=io.atic that a co.plaint or infor.ation .ust state every single fact necessary to constitute
the offense charged7 otherwise' a .otion to dis.iss@:uash on the ground that it charges no offense
.ay 2e properly sustained. 9he funda.ental test in considering a .otion to :uash on this ground
is whether the facts alleged' if hypothetically ad.itted' will esta2lish the essential ele.ents of the
offense as defined in the law.
Contrary to the petitioner0s contention' a reading of the infor.ation will disclose that the essential
ele.ents of the offense charged are sufficiently alleged. ;t is not proper therefore to resolve the
charges at the very outset' in a preli.inary hearing only and without the 2enefit of a full-2lown
trial. 9he issues re:uire a fuller e=a.ination. Given the circu.stances of this case' we feel it would
2e unfair to shut off the prosecution at this stage of the proceedings and to dis.iss the infor.ations
on the 2asis only of the petitioner0s evidence' such as +this,.
+5/,
As in the recent case of Los &a+,os v. Pedro,
+53,
where we found no .erit in respondent0s allegation
that the facts charged do not constitute an offense 2ecause Athe ;nfor.ation duly charged a specific
offense and provide+d, the details on how the offense was co..itted'A
+5%,
we see no apparent
defect in the allegations in the ;nfor.ation in the case at 2ar. Clearly' the facts alleged in its
accusatory portion' which reads(
9hat on or a2out the "/
th
day of 5e2ruary' "--"' in asay City' 6etro 6anila' hilippines and within
the <urisdiction of this ?onora2le Court' the a2ove-na.ed accused' >C1 R. BCR1!;>>A' having 2een
united in a lawful .arriage with one 6KR!A A. BCR1!;>>A' which .arriage is still in force and
su2sisting and without having 2een legally dissolved' did then and there willfully' unlawfully and
feloniously contract a second .arriage with one Cecile 6aguillo' which su2se:uent .arriage of the
accused has all the essential re:uisites for validity.
+5-,
sufficiently constitute an offense. ;t contained all the ele.ents of the cri.e of Biga.y under Article
&4- of the Revised enal Code hereunder enu.erated(
)"* that the offender has 2een legally .arried7
)$* that the first .arriage has not 2een legally dissolved or' in case his or her spouse is a2sent' the
a2sent spouse could not yet 2e presu.ed dead according to the Civil Code7
)&* that he contracts a second or su2se:uent .arriage7 and
)4* that the second or su2se:uent .arriage has all the essential re:uisites for validity.
+/#,
9he docu.ents showing that( )"* the court has decreed that the .arriage of petitioner and
respondent is null and void fro. the 2eginning7 and )$* such <udg.ent has already 2eco.e final
and e=ecutory and duly registered with the 6unicipal Civil Registrar of !aval' Biliran are pieces of
evidence that seek to esta2lish a fact contrary to that alleged in the ;nfor.ation HI that a first valid
.arriage was su2sisting at the ti.e the respondent contracted a su2se:uent .arriage. 9his should
not have 2een considered at all 2ecause .atters of defense cannot 2e raised in a .otion to :uash.
!either do we find a <ustifia2le reason for sustaining the .otion to :uash even after taking into
consideration the esta2lished e=ceptions to the rule earlier recogniEed 2y this Court' a.ong others(
)"* when the new allegations are ad.itted 2y the prosecution7
+/",
)$* when the Rules so per.it'
such as upon the grounds of e=tinction of cri.inal lia2ility and dou2le <eopardy7
+/$,
and )&* when
facts have 2een esta2lished 2y evidence presented 2y 2oth parties which destroyed the prima
facie truth of the allegations in the infor.ation during the hearing on a .otion to :uash 2ased on
the ground thatthe facts charged do not constitute an offense, and Ait would 2e pure technicality for
the court to close its eyes to said facts and still give due course to the prosecution of the case
already shown to 2e weak even to support possi2le conviction ===.A
+/&,
5or of what significance would the docu.ent showing the 2elated dissolution of the first .arriage
offerJ Dould it serve to prevent the i.practica2ility of proceeding with the trial in accordance
withPeople v. dela Rosa there2y warranting the non-o2servance of the settled rule that a .otion to
:uash is a hypothetical ad.ission of the facts alleged in the infor.ationJ De :uote(
+D,here in the hearing on a .otion to :uash predicated on the ground that the allegations of the
infor.ation do not charge an offense' facts have 2een 2rought out 2y evidence presented 2y 2oth
parties which destroy the prima facie truth accorded to the allegations of the infor.ation on the
hypothetical ad.ission thereof' as is i.plicit in the nature of the ground of the .otion to :uash' &(
0o1+- be /1re (ec)'&c*+&(2 .or ()e co1r( (o c+o%e &(% e2e% (o %*&- .*c(% *'- %(&++ ,&3e -1e
co1r%e (o ()e /ro%ec1(&o' o. ()e c*%e *+re*-2 %)o0' (o be 0e*4 e3e' (o %1//or( /o%%&b+e
co'3&c(&o', *'- )o+- ()e *cc1%e- (o 0)*( 0o1+- c+e*r+2 *//e*r (o be * mere+2 3e5*(&o1%
*'- e5/e'%&3e (r&*+, o' )er /*r(, *'- * 0*%(e.1+ e5/e'%e o. /rec&o1% (&me o' ()e /*r( o.
()e co1r(, *% 0e++ *% o. ()e /ro%ec1(&o'.
+/4,
!mphasis supplied."
De find that there is none.
Dith the su2.ission of the docu.ents showing that the court has declared the first .arriage
void ab initio' respondent heavily relied on the rulings
+/5,
in People v. Mendo(a and Morigo declaring
that( )a* a case for 2iga.y 2ased on a void ab initio .arriage will not prosper 2ecause there is no
need for a <udicial decree to esta2lish that a void ab initio .arriage is invalid7
+//,
and )2* a .arriage
declaredvoid ab initio has retroactive legal effect such that there would 2e no first valid .arriage to
speak of after all' which renders the ele.ents of 2iga.y inco.plete.
+/3,
Both principles' however' run contrary to the new provision of the 5a.ily Code' which was
pro.ulgated 2y the late resident CoraEon C. A:uino in "-%3' a few years 2efore respondent0s
su2se:uent .arriage was cele2rated in "--".
9he specific provision' which reads(
AR9. 4#. 9he a2solute nullity of a previous .arriage .ay 2e invoked for purposes of re.arriage on
the 2asis solely of a final <udg.ent declaring such .arriage void.
was e=haustively discussed in Mercado'
+/%,
where this Court settled the AconflictingA <urisprudence on
Athe need for a <udicial declaration of nullity of the previous .arriage.A After esta2lishing that
Article 4# is a new provision e=pressly re:uiring a <udicial declaration of nullity of a prior .arriage
and e=a.ining a long line of cases'
+/-,
this Court' concluded' in essence' that under the 5a.ily Code
a su2se:uent <udicial declaration of the nullity of the first .arriage is i..aterial in a 2iga.y case
2ecause' 2y then' the cri.e had already 2een consu..ated. 1therwise stated' this Court declared
that a person' who contracts a su2se:uent .arriage a2sent a prior <udicial declaration of nullity of a
previous one' is guilty of 2iga.y.
+3#,
!ota2ly' Morigo, was indeed pro.ulgated years after Mercado. !evertheless' we cannot uphold the
1rder dated / 4ece.2er $##3 of the trial court' which .aintained that Morigo has already
supersededMercado. ;n fact' in Morigo' this Court clearly distinguished the two )$* cases fro. one
another' and e=plained(
9he present case is analogous to' 2ut .ust 2e distinguished fro. Mercado v. 9an. ;n the latter
case' the <udicial declaration of nullity of the first .arriage was likewise o2tainedafter the second
.arriage was already cele2rated. ===
;t 2ears stressing though that in Mercado, the first .arriage was actually sole.niEed ===.
1stensi2ly' at least' the first .arriage appeared to have transpired' although later declared void ab
initio.
;n the instant case' however' no .arriage cere.ony at all was perfor.ed 2y a duly authoriEed
sole.niEing officer. etitioner and >ucia Barrete .erely signed a .arriage contract on their own.
9he .ere private act of signing a .arriage contract 2ears no se.2lance to a valid .arriage and
thus' needs no <udicial declaration of nullity. Such act alone' without .ore' cannot 2e dee.ed to
constitute an ostensi2ly valid .arriage for which petitioner .ight 2e held lia2le for 2iga.y unless he
first secures a <udicial declaration of nullity 2efore he contracts a su2se:uent .arriage.
+3",
9he application of Mercado to the cases following Morigo even reinforces the position of this Court to
give full .eaning to Article 4# of the 5a.ily Code. 9hus' in $##4' this Court ruled in Tenebro v.
#ourt of %ppeals(
+3$,
Although the <udicial declaration of the nullity of a .arriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity retroacts to the date of the cele2ration of the .arriage insofar as the vinculum 2etween
the spouses is concerned' === said .arriage is not without legal effects. A.ong these effects is
that children conceived or 2orn 2efore the <udg.ent of a2solute nullity of the .arriage shall 2e
considered legiti.ate. T)ere &% ()ere.ore * reco,'&(&o' written into the law itself ()*( %1c)
* m*rr&*,e, *+()o1,) 3o&- ab initio, m*2 %(&++ /ro-1ce +e,*+ co'%e61e'ce%. Amo', ()e%e
+e,*+ co'%e61e'ce% &% &'c1rr&', cr&m&'*+ +&*b&+&(2 .or b&,*m2. ===.
+3&,
!mphasis supplied."
5inally' in Re* #omplaint of Mrs. #ora(on -. -alvador against -pouses .oel and %melia -erafico,
+34,
this Court pronounced(
;n a catena of cases'
+35,
the Court has consistently held that a <udicial declaration of nullity is
re:uired 2efore a valid su2se:uent .arriage can 2e contracted7 or else' what transpires is a
2iga.ous .arriage' reprehensi2le and i..oral. ===
9o conclude' the issue on the declaration of nullity of the .arriage 2etween petitioner and
respondent only after the latter contracted the su2se:uent .arriage is' therefore' i..aterial for the
purpose of esta2lishing that the facts alleged in the information for Biga.y does not constitute an
offense. 5ollowing the sa.e rationale' neither .ay such defense 2e interposed 2y the respondent
in his .otion to :uash 2y way of e=ception to the esta2lished rule that facts contrary to the
allegations in the infor.ation are .atters of defense which .ay 2e raised only during the
presentation of evidence.
All considered' we find that the trial court co..itted grave a2use of discretion when' in so :uashing
the ;nfor.ation in Cri.inal Case !o. #3-#-#3-C56' it considered an evidence introduced to prove a
fact not alleged thereat disregarding the settled rules that a .otion to :uash is a hypothetical
ad.ission of the facts stated in the infor.ation7 and that facts not alleged thereat .ay 2e
appreciated only under e=ceptional circu.stances' none of which is o2taining in the instant petition.
78R9OR' the 1rders dated $# Septe.2er $##3 and / 4ece.2er $##3 of the Regional 9rial
Court' Branch ""5' asay City as well as the Resolutions dated $- April $##% and "% 8uly $##% of
the Court of Appeals are here2y ST ASID. Cri.inal Case !o. #3-#-#3-C56 is RMANDD to
the trial court for further proceedings.
SO ORDRD.
Corona,C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-e Castro,
!
el Castillo, *'- Abad,
!!
JJ., co'c1r.
"ndnotes#
L
er Special 1rder !o. -"/ dated $4 !ove.2er $#"#' Associate 8ustice 9eresita 8. >eonardo-4e
Castro is designated as Acting Dorking Chairperson.
LL
er Special 1rder !o. -"3 dated $4 !ove.2er $#"#' Associate 8ustice Ro2erto A. A2ad is
designated as Additional 6e.2er.
+",
enned 2y Associate 8ustice 5ernanda >a.pas eralta with Associate 8ustices Cdgardo . CruE and
Apolinario 4. Bruselas' 8r.' concurring. Rollo' pp. $--&".
+$,
Both issued 2y 8udge 5rancisco G. 6endiola. Records' pp. 5#-5$ and /&.
+&,
Rollo, pp. &$-&&.
+4,
Records' pp. ""-"4.
+5,
'd. at "-$.
+/,
'd. at &"-&/.
+3,
'd. at &$.
+%,
'd. at &$-&&.
+-,
'd. at &4.
+"#,
CA rollo' p. &4.
+"",
'd. at &&-4".
+"$,
'd. at &3-&%.
+"&,
'd. at &5.
+"4,
Records' p. 4%.
+"5,
'd. at 5$.
+"/,
G.R. !o. "45$$/' / 5e2ruary $##4' 4$$ SCRA &3/.
+"3,
Records' pp. 5"-5$ citing Morigo v. People, id.
+"%,
Records' pp. 55-/".
+"-,
G.R. !o. "&3""#' " August $###' &&3 SCRA "$$.
+$#,
Records' p. 5- citing Mercado v. Tan, id.
+$",
Records' p. /&.
+$$,
Rollo' p. $".
+$&,
'd. at /4.
+$4,
'd. at "#-.
+$5,
'd. at "$/.
+$/,
'd. at "$&-"$/.
+$3,
CA rollo' pp. $-5$.
+$%,
'd. at 55-5/.
+$-,
'd. at ""/.
+&#,
Rollo' pp. --/4.
+&",
Sec. 4' Rule 3' Rules of Court' as a.ended 2y A.6. !o. ##-$-"# dated " 6ay $###.
+&$,
/on. !duardo .onato )oson, in his capacity as the 0overnor of the Province of .ueva !cija v.
!1ecutive -ecretary Ruben $. Torres, et al., G.R. !o. "&"$55' $# 6ay "--% citing' a.ong
others' 2shita v. Republic, >-$""%#' &" 6arch "-/3' "- SCRA 3##'3#&.
+&&,
'd.
+&4,
'd.7 Robern $evelopment #orporation v. )udge )esus 3. 4uitain' G. R. !o. "&5#4$' $&
Septe.2er "---' &3& SCRA 33&' 3%/.
+&5,
Sec. &5)"*' Chapter "$' 9itle ;;;' Book ;F of the Ad.inistrative Code of "-%3.
+&/,
Sec. &5)%*' Chapter "$' 9itle ;;;' Book ;F of the Ad.inistrative Code of "-%3.
+&3,
!o. >-/"--3' "5 !ove.2er "-%$' &3# SCRA &3#.
+&%,
'd. at &3&.
+&-,
0alangco v. Fung' G.R. !o. "53-5$' % Septe.2er $##-' 5-% SCRA /&3' /4&.
+4#,
G.R. !o. "$-5/3' 4 4ece.2er "--%' $-- SCRA 3"4.
+4",
'd. at 3$# citing Tan v. 0allardo, 3& SCRA &#/' &"& +"-3/,.
+4$,
'd. at 3$" citing the following cases( People v. Montesa, )r., $4% SCRA /4"' /44-/45 +"--&,'
further citing Republic v. Partisala, ""% SCRA &3# +"-%$,7 #ity Fiscal of Tacloban v. !spina' "//
SCRA /"4 +"-%%,7 People v. $acudao, "3# SCRA 4%- +"-%-,7 People v. #alo, "%/ SCRA /$#
+"--#,7 and People v. .ano' $#5 SCRA "55 +"--$,.
+4&,
G.R. !o. "&34%-' $- 6ay $##$' &%$ SCRA 55$.
+44,
'd. at 5/%.
+45,
Tan v. People' G.R. !o. "3&/&3' $" April $##-' 5%/ SCRA "&-' "/$ citing the following
cases( $imatulac v. 3illon, &5% hil. &$%' &//7 $-3 SCRA /3-' 3"4 )"--%*7People v. -ubida, G.R.
!o. "45-45' $3 8une $##/' 4-& SCRA "$5' "&3.
+4/,
Tan v. People, id. at "/$-"/&.
+43,
)avier v. -andiganbayan, First $ivision' G.R. !os. "43#$/-$3' "" Septe.2er $##-' 5-- SCRA
&$4' &4&-&44 citing #abo v. -andiganbayan, G.R. !o. "/-5#-' "/ 8une $##/' 4-" SCRA $/4.
+4%,
Milo v. -alanga' !o. >-&3##3' $# 8uly "-%3' "5$ SCRA ""&' "$$.
+4-,
'd. at "$"-"$$ citing the following( Section %' Rule ""3' Rules of Court7 now Section 3' Rule ""3'
"-%5 Rules on Cri.inal rocedure7 %ndres v. #acdac, )r.' ""& SCRA $"/.
+5#,
People v. #onsulta, !o. >-4"$5"' &" 6arch "-3/' 3# SCRA $33' $%#-$%".
+5",
'd. :uoting Secs. $)f* and $)h*' now su2stantially reproduced in Secs. &)g* and &)i* of the $###
Rules on Cri.inal rocedure' to wit( )g* 9hat the cri.inal action or lia2ility has 2een e=tinguished7
and )i* 9hat the accused has 2een previously convicted or ac:uitted of the offense charged' or the
case against hi. was dis.issed or otherwise ter.inated without his e=press consent.
+5$,
)avier v. -andiganbayan, First $ivision' supra note 43 citing %riel Los &a+,os, et al. v. )oel
Pedro, G.R. !o. "3&5%%' $$ April $##-' 5%/ SCRA &#&.
+5&,
Milo v. -alanga' supra note 4% at "$" citing People v. Lim /oa, "#& hil. ""/- and Regalado'
Re.edial >aw Co.pen+diu.,' "#%5 ed.' Fol. $' p. /%4.
+54,
Milo v. -alanga, supra note 4% at "$".
+55,
G.R. !o. %&354' "% 5e2ruary "--"' "-4 SCRA "45.
+5/,
'd. at "5# citing 5.-. v. Pompeya, &" hil. $45 and People v. de la Rosa, !o. >-&4""$' $5 8une
"-%#' -% SCRA "-#.
+53,
G.R. !o. "3&5%%' $$ April $##-' 5%/ SCRA &#&.
+5%,
'd. at &$".
+5-,
Records' p. ".
+/#,
Tenebro v. #ourt of %ppeals' G.R. !o. "5#35%' "% 5e2ruary $##4' 4$& SCRA $3$' $3- citing
Reyes' >.B.' T/! R!3'-!$ P!.%L #2$!, Book 9wo' "4
th
ed.' "--%' p. -#3.
+/",
People v. .avarro, !os. >-" and >-$' 35 hil. 5"/' 5"%-5"- +"-45,.
+/$,
0arcia v. #ourt of %ppeals, G.R. !o. ""-#/&' $3 8anuary "--3' $// SCRA /3%' /-".
+/&,
People v. de la Rosa' supra note 5/ at "---$##.
+/4,
'd.
+/5,
Rollo, p. "45 citing Morigo v. People, supra note "/ and People v. Mendo(a, >-5%33' -5 hil. %45.
+//,
Rollo, p. "45 citing People v. Mendo(a, id.
+/3,
Morigo v. People, supra note "/ at &%&-&%4.
+/%,
-upra note "-.
+/-,
-upra note "- at "$%-"&& citing' a.ong others' the following( 6iegel v. -empio7$iy,"4& SCRA
4--' "- August "-%/' per aras' ).7 $omingo v. #ourt of %ppeals, $$/ SCRA 53$' "3 Septe.2er
"--&' per Ro.ero' )' citing Se.pio-4iy' /andboo8 of the Family #ode of the Philippines, "-%%' p.
4/7 and Terre v. Terre, $"" SCRA /' & 8uly "--$' per curiam.
+3#,
-upra note "- at "$4.
+3",
-upra note "/ at &%4.
+3$,
G.R. "5#35%' "% 5e2ruary $##4' 4$& SCRA $3$.
+3&,
'd. at $%4.
+34,
A.6. !o. $##%-$#-SC' "5 6arch $#"#.
+35,
'd. citing Morigo v. People' G.R. !o. "45$$/' 5e2ruary /' $##4' 4$$ SCRA &3/7$omingo v. #ourt
of %ppeals' G.R. !o. "#4%"%' Septe.2er "3' "--&' $$/ SCRA 53$7Terre v. Terre' A.C. !o. $&4-'
8uly &' "--$' $"" SCRA 37 6iegel v. -empio7$iy' !o. >-5&3#&' August "-' "-%/' "4& SCRA
4--7 3da. de #onsuegra v. 0overnment -ervice 'nsurance -ystem' !o. >-$%#-&' 8anuary &#' "-3"'
&3 SCRA &"57 0ome( v. Lipana' !o. >-$&$"4' 8une &#' "-3#' && SCRA /"4.