COR JESU COLLEGE LAW SCHOOL

BAR OPERATIONS 2014

Case Digests in CIVIL LAW





















A project of CJC Law School First Year Legal Research Class
(2014-2015).
CorJesu College Law School
Bar Operations 2014


SUBJECT : Civil Law

Case Title : Jarillo v. People of the Philippines
Case number and date : G.R. No 164435, June 29, 2010
Digested by : Elvin N. Palao

Facts:

Petitioner was charged with the crime of bigamy for contracting a
subsequent marriage to Emmanual Uy on or about Nov. 26, 1979, when she still had
a subsisting marriage to Rafael Alocillo. She was married to the latter on May 24,
1974.
Petitioner argued that her marriage to Alocillo was null and void ab initio,
because Alocillo also had a subsisting marriage to one Loretta Tillman at the time
they were wedded. Also, during the course of the proceedings of the instant case,
another case was pending for the declaration of the nullity of her first marriage.
As to the crime charged against her, petitioner argued that the prescriptive
period of said crime began in 1978, a year prior to their marriage when her mother
disclosed to Uy of her previous marriage to Alocillo.

Issues:

1) Whether or not the pendency of the case for the declaration of the nullity of her
first marriage was prejudicial to the outcome of the instant case;
2) Whether or not petitioner can be convicted of bigamy in view of the proof that
her prior marriage to Alocillo had been annulled finally and declared void ab initio;
3) Whether or not the CA erred in ignoring the pending case at RTC Br. 38 for the
annulment of marriage between Petitioner and Uy
4) Whether or not the crime of bigamy had already prescribed;
5) Whether or not the CA erred in ignoring that petitioner's marriage to Uy had no
valid license; and
6) Whether or not the CA erred in not acquitting petitioner and instead punishing
her with an erroneous penalty.

Held:

Petition partly granted. The Court maintained that the annulment of the first
marriage was not a prejudicial question, because the crime was already committed
before said annulment, making it subject to penalty as stated in Art. 349 of the RPC.
The crime was indubitably committed because petitioner's first marriage had not
yet been declared null by a judicial authority at the time she contracted her
marriage to Uy, as was held in Abunado v. People. As to petitioner's allegation that
her marriage to Uy had no valid license, the Court found no sufficient evidence.
Same is true for her contention that the crime had already prescribed, because
petitioner did not bring her mother to the witness stand, who could have brought
sufficient proof that said crime had already prescribed.
The Court also maintained that the CA did not commit an error in
proceeding with the instant case, because as stated in Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis, the
criminal case may not be suspended on the ground of a pending civil case. Likewise,
the CA did not commit an error as to the penalty imposed, pursuant to Art. 349 of
the RPC.
Nonetheless, the Court reduced the penalty of imprisonment from six years
to ten years, down to two years to eight years, for humanitarian reasons. This was in
view of the fact that her marriage to Alocillo has after all been declared null and
void ab initio due to th latter's psychological incapacity.