Marbella vs. Bobis Case
Uploaded by
Rodolfo TobiasMarbella vs. Bobis Case
Uploaded by
Rodolfo TobiasPREJUDICIAL QUESTION
IMELDA MARBELLA-BOBIS, Petitioner, v. ISAGANI D. BOBIS, respondent.
G.R. No. 138509. July 31, 2000
ISSUE: Whether or not the subsequent filing of a civil action for declaration of nullity of a previous marriage
constitutes a prejudicial question to a criminal case for bigamy. (NO.)
FACTS:
● On October 21, 1985, respondent contracted a first marriage with one Maria Dulce B. Javier. Without
said marriage having been annulled, nullified or terminated, the same respondent contracted a second
marriage with petitioner Imelda Marbella-Bobis on January 25, 1996 and allegedly a third marriage with
a certain Julia Sally Hernandez.
● Petitioner then filed a complaint of bigamy against the respondent.
● Respondent then initiated a civil action for the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of his first marriage
on the ground that it was celebrated without a marriage license and filed a motion to suspend the
proceedings in the criminal case for bigamy invoking the pending civil case for nullity of the first
marriage as a prejudicial question to the criminal case, which is then granted.
● Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied.
HELD:
● Article 40 of the Family Code, which was effective at the time of celebration of the second marriage,
requires a prior judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage before a party may remarry. Thus,
respondent, without first having obtained the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage, can not
be said to have validly entered into the second marriage. Per current jurisprudence, a marriage though
void still needs a judicial declaration of such fact before any party can marry again; otherwise the second
marriage will also be void for the reason that the first marriage is presumed to be subsisting.
● Thus, a decision in a civil case is not essential to the determination of the criminal charge. It is,
therefore, not a prejudicial question. And respondent cannot be permitted to use his own
malfeasance to defeat the criminal action against him.
NOTE: A prejudicial question does not conclusively resolve the guilt or innocence of the accused but simply tests
the sufficiency of the allegations in the information in order to sustain the further prosecution of the criminal case.
A party who raises a prejudicial question is deemed to have hypothetically admitted that all the essential elements
of a crime have been adequately alleged in the information, considering that the prosecution has not yet presented
a single evidence on the indictment or may not yet have rested its case. A challenge of the allegations in the
information on the ground of prejudicial question is in effect a question on the merits of the criminal charge
through a non-criminal suit.
KAT