Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 206 views

    Teves Vs People - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Maria Lourdes Dator
    Cenon Teves married Thelma in 1992 and married Edita in 2001 before having his marriage to Thelma annulled. [1] He was charged with bigamy in 2006. [2] The Supreme Court upheld his conviction, finding that a judicial declaration of nullity is required before contracting a second marriage, otherwise it is bigamous. [3] His annulment of the first marriage after the second marriage and bigamy charge did not absolve him of liability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Teves Vs People - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Maria Lourdes Dator
    206 views1 page
    Cenon Teves married Thelma in 1992 and married Edita in 2001 before having his marriage to Thelma annulled. [1] He was charged with bigamy in 2006. [2] The Supreme Court upheld his conviction, finding that a judicial declaration of nullity is required before contracting a second marriage, otherwise it is bigamous. [3] His annulment of the first marriage after the second marriage and bigamy charge did not absolve him of liability.

    Original Description:

    Persons and Family Relations

    Original Title

    Teves vs People_Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Cenon Teves married Thelma in 1992 and married Edita in 2001 before having his marriage to Thelma annulled. [1] He was charged with bigamy in 2006. [2] The Supreme Court upheld his conviction, finding that a judicial declaration of nullity is required before contracting a second marriage, otherwise it is bigamous. [3] His annulment of the first marriage after the second marriage and bigamy charge did not absolve him of liability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    206 views1 page

    Teves Vs People - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Maria Lourdes Dator
    Cenon Teves married Thelma in 1992 and married Edita in 2001 before having his marriage to Thelma annulled. [1] He was charged with bigamy in 2006. [2] The Supreme Court upheld his conviction, finding that a judicial declaration of nullity is required before contracting a second marriage, otherwise it is bigamous. [3] His annulment of the first marriage after the second marriage and bigamy charge did not absolve him of liability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Teves vs People G.R. No.

    188775, [August 24, 2011]

    DOCTRINE: Where the absolute nullity of a previous marriage is sought to be invoked for purposes of contracting a second marriage,
    the sole basis acceptable in law for said projected marriage to be free from legal infirmity is a final judgment declaring the previous
    marriage void.

    A judicial declaration of nullity is required before a valid subsequent marriage can be contracted; or else, what transpires is a
    bigamous marriage, reprehensible and immoral.

    FACTS:
    Cenon Teves / Thelma Cenon Teves Edita Bigamy or not? YES! Bigamy or not? NO! only if
    1992 Nov 26 married
    After marriage, work abroad 1st marriage annulled
    2001 Dec 10 married
    2002 found out hubby 2
    timer
    2006 bigamy complaint filed
    by Thelmas uncle
    2006 May marriage annulled 2006 May 1st marriage
    (ground: physical incapacity of annulled
    Thelma, FC Art. 36); Cert of
    Finality, 27 Jun 2006
    2006 June Cenon charged
    with bigamy (RPC Article 349)

    ISSUE: Whether petitioner may be held guilty for the crime of Bigamy (Article 346, RPC) despite the judicial declaration that his
    previous marriage with Thelma was already null and void by that time.
    Cenon: there is in effect no marriage at all, and thus, there is no bigamy to speak of.

    HELD: It does not matter whether the case for declaration of nullity was filed before the case for bigamy was instituted, for as long
    as the offender contracted a subsequent marriage while his previous marriage is subsisting thereby not being able to secure a
    Declaration of Nullity of the First marriage AT THE TIME HE CONTRACTED THE SECOND MARRIAGE.

    RATIO: The instant case has all the elements of the crime of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code: The penalty of
    prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage
    has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in
    the proper proceedings.

    The elements of this crime are as follows:


    1. That the offender has been legally married;
    2. That the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be
    presumed dead according to the Civil Code;
    3. That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and
    4. That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.

    Thus, the CA was correct in affirming the conviction of petitioner.

    If petitioners contention would be allowed, a person who commits bigamy can simply evade prosecution by immediately filing a
    petition for the declaration of nullity of his earlier marriage and hope that a favorable decision is rendered therein before anyone
    institutes a complaint against him. We note that in petitioners case the complaint was filed before the first marriage was declared
    a nullity. It was only the filing of the Information that was overtaken by the declaration of nullity of his first marriage. Following
    petitioners argument, even assuming that a complaint has been instituted, such as in this case, the offender can still escape liability
    provided that a decision nullifying his earlier marriage precedes the filing of the Information in court.

    Such cannot be allowed.

    You might also like