This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-12-08 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As in the recent case of Los Baños v. Pedro,[57] where we found no merit in respondent's allegation that the facts charged do not constitute an offense because "the Information duly charged a specific offense and provide[d] the details on how the offense was committed,"[58] we see no apparent defect in the allegations in the Information in the case at bar. Clearly, the facts alleged in its accusatory portion, which reads: That on or about the 16th day of February, 1991, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, LEO R. BERONILLA, having been united in a lawful marriage with one MYRNA A. BERONILLA, which marriage is still in force and subsisting and without having been legally dissolved, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously contract a second marriage with one Cecile Maguillo, which subsequent marriage of the accused has all the essential requisites for validity.[59] | |||||
|
2009-09-18 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Suffice it to say that Section 261(s) was not the one modified by Section 32 of R.A. No. 7166, but Section 261(q). As noted in Los Banos v. Pedro:[37] | |||||