Bigamy and Prior Annulment: What the Supreme Court Ruled in People v. Odtuhan

The Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in People v. Odtuhan (G.R. No. 191566) clarifies a common misconception: obtaining a court declaration that your first marriage was void ab initio (void from the start) does not automatically shield you from a bigamy charge. The case is a practical warning for anyone who remarries before securing a judicial declaration of nullity of a prior marriage.

The Facts of the Case

Edgardo V. Odtuhan married Jasmin Modina in 1980. More than a decade later, in October 1993, he married Eleanor A. Alagon. In August 1994—after the second marriage—Odtuhan filed a petition to annul his first marriage. The Regional Trial Court of Pasig City granted the petition in February 1999, declaring the first marriage void ab initio for lack of a valid marriage license.

Eleanor died in November 2003. In June 2003, a private complainant learned of Odtuhan’s earlier marriage and filed a complaint for bigamy. In April 2005, an Information was filed against him, alleging that he contracted a second marriage while still legally married to Modina.

Odtuhan moved to quash the information. He argued that the facts did not charge the offense of bigamy and that his criminal liability had been extinguished because his first marriage had already been declared void. The trial court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals reversed, relying on an earlier ruling (Morigo v. People), and ordered the trial court to hear the motion to quash. The prosecution then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Issue

The central question was whether a judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage—obtained before the bigamy complaint was filed—bars a bigamy prosecution or extinguishes criminal liability.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the prosecution and set aside the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that the information sufficiently alleged all elements of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code: (1) the offender was legally married; (2) the first marriage had not been legally dissolved; (3) the offender contracted a second or subsequent marriage; and (4) the second marriage had all the essential requisites for validity.

The Court explained that a motion to quash tests the sufficiency of the information on its face. The accused is deemed to have hypothetically admitted the facts alleged. Evidence outside the information—such as the annulment decree—cannot be considered at that stage. Matters of defense are for trial, not for a motion to quash.

The Court distinguished Morigo, where the accused was acquitted because the first marriage was void for lack of a solemnizing officer. In Odtuhan, the annulment was obtained only after the second marriage had already been contracted. The Court emphasized that parties cannot judge for themselves the nullity of their marriage. Until a competent court declares it void, the presumption is that the marriage exists. A person who remarries before such a declaration assumes the risk of prosecution for bigamy.

The Court also rejected the argument that criminal liability was extinguished by the annulment. Criminal liability attaches at the moment the offense is committed. The timing of the complaint is relevant only for prescription, not for the existence of the crime.

Practical Takeaways

• A prior annulment does not erase bigamy liability. If you remarry before a court declares your first marriage void, you can still be prosecuted for bigamy—even if the annulment is granted before the complaint is filed.
• Do not judge your own marriage as void. Only a competent court can declare a marriage void. Until then, the law presumes the marriage exists, and remarrying is risky.
• A motion to quash is limited. It tests only the face of the information. Defenses based on evidence, like an annulment decree, belong in a full trial.
• Criminal liability attaches at the time of the offense. A later annulment does not retroactively extinguish the crime of bigamy.
• Timing matters for prescription only. The date of filing the complaint is relevant to whether the crime has prescribed, not to whether it was committed.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.