January 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > January 2011 Resolutions >
[GR. No. 193157 : January 10, 2011] NESTOR M. SEVILLENA, PETITIONER VS. HON. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, IN HER CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, AND DIONISIO N. VELASCO, JR. AND ANTONIO S. NIVAL, RESPONDENTS. :
[GR. No. 193157 : January 10, 2011]
NESTOR M. SEVILLENA, PETITIONER VS. HON. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, IN HER CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, AND DIONISIO N. VELASCO, JR. AND ANTONIO S. NIVAL, RESPONDENTS.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 10 January 2011, which reads as follows:
GR. No. 193157 - NESTOR M. SEVILLENA, petitioner - versus - HON. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, in her capacity as Ombudsman, and DIONISIO N. VELASCO, JR. and ANTONIO S. NIVAL, respondents.
RESOLUTION
This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration, dated November 25, 2010, filed by petitioner Nestor M. Sevillena to set aside our Resolution of September 29, 2010, affirming the December 14, 2009 resolution and the June 21, 2010 order of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-L-C-06-0756-G, both finding probable cause for bigamy against the petitioner.
In his Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner repeats the following arguments found in his Petition for Review dated June 24, 2010; he alleges that (1) the complaint, which was not filed by the offended party or persons with personal knowledge of the crime, should have been dismissed; (2) the complaint for bigamy should not have prospered since the second marriage was void as there was no valid marriage ceremony; and (3) the proceedings questioning the validity of the first marriage constitute a prejudicial question and should have led to the dismissal of the case.
We deny the motion for reconsideration.
Bigamy is a crime against the State and may be filed by any person who has knowledge of its commission. To support their allegations, Dionisio N. Velasco, Jr. and Antonio S. Nival attached a copy of the marriage contract of the first marriage, the certificate of marriage of the second marriage, and the related application forms.[1] These are public documents whose content may be reasonably relied upon and whose authenticity was not assailed. They also constitute sufficient proof for a finding of probable cause.
The nullity of a marriage cannot be presumed before the Court declares it void. The pending proceedings to nullify the first and the second marriages do not constitute prejudicial questions as the second marriage was contracted even before instituting the judicial proceedings to declare the first marriage void. Without a final judicial declaration that the first marriage was void, the petitioner could be charged with and convicted of bigamy.[2] In Jarillo v. People,[3] we held that the subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the petitioner's two marriages could not be considered as a valid defense in the crime of bigamy. The crime of bigamy is committed the moment a second marriage is contracted without the judicial declaration of the nullity of a first marriage.
The petitioner's defenses would be best raised during the judicial proceedings, where the conflicting evidence of both parties may be examined and properly weighed by a judge.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
GR. No. 193157 - NESTOR M. SEVILLENA, petitioner - versus - HON. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, in her capacity as Ombudsman, and DIONISIO N. VELASCO, JR. and ANTONIO S. NIVAL, respondents.
This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration, dated November 25, 2010, filed by petitioner Nestor M. Sevillena to set aside our Resolution of September 29, 2010, affirming the December 14, 2009 resolution and the June 21, 2010 order of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-L-C-06-0756-G, both finding probable cause for bigamy against the petitioner.
In his Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner repeats the following arguments found in his Petition for Review dated June 24, 2010; he alleges that (1) the complaint, which was not filed by the offended party or persons with personal knowledge of the crime, should have been dismissed; (2) the complaint for bigamy should not have prospered since the second marriage was void as there was no valid marriage ceremony; and (3) the proceedings questioning the validity of the first marriage constitute a prejudicial question and should have led to the dismissal of the case.
We deny the motion for reconsideration.
Bigamy is a crime against the State and may be filed by any person who has knowledge of its commission. To support their allegations, Dionisio N. Velasco, Jr. and Antonio S. Nival attached a copy of the marriage contract of the first marriage, the certificate of marriage of the second marriage, and the related application forms.[1] These are public documents whose content may be reasonably relied upon and whose authenticity was not assailed. They also constitute sufficient proof for a finding of probable cause.
The nullity of a marriage cannot be presumed before the Court declares it void. The pending proceedings to nullify the first and the second marriages do not constitute prejudicial questions as the second marriage was contracted even before instituting the judicial proceedings to declare the first marriage void. Without a final judicial declaration that the first marriage was void, the petitioner could be charged with and convicted of bigamy.[2] In Jarillo v. People,[3] we held that the subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the petitioner's two marriages could not be considered as a valid defense in the crime of bigamy. The crime of bigamy is committed the moment a second marriage is contracted without the judicial declaration of the nullity of a first marriage.
The petitioner's defenses would be best raised during the judicial proceedings, where the conflicting evidence of both parties may be examined and properly weighed by a judge.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court,
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 50-53.
[2] Mercado v. Tan, 391 Phil. 809, 824 (2000).
[3] GR. No. 164435, September 29, 2009, 601 SCRA236, 246.
