This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-07-15 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| In Montañez v. Cipriano,[15] this Court enumerated the elements of bigamy as follows: The elements of the crime of bigamy are: (a) the offender has been legally married; (b) the marriage has not been legally dissolved x x x; (c) that he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and (d) the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. The felony is consummated on the celebration of the second marriage or subsequent marriage. It is essential in the prosecution for bigamy that the alleged second marriage, having all the essential requirements, would be valid were it not for the subsistence of the first marriage. (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2014-01-13 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, the petition filed essentially assails the criminal, not the civil, aspect of the CA Decision. It must even be stressed that petitioner never challenged before the CA, and in this Court, the RTC judgment which absolved respondent Aliga from civil liability in view of the return of the P60,000.00 subject matter of the offense on October 30, 1996. Therefore, the petition should have been filed only by the State through the OSG. Petitioner lacks the personality or legal standing to question the CA Decision because it is only the OSG which can bring actions on behalf of the State in criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court and the CA. Unlike in Montañez v. Cipriano[17]where we adopted a liberal view, the OSG, in its Comment on this case,[18] neither prayed that the petition be granted nor expressly ratified and adopted as its own the petition for the People of the Philippines. Instead, it merely begged to excuse itself from filing a Comment due to conflict of interest and for not having been impleaded in the case. | |||||
|
2013-07-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The issues are not novel and have been squarely ruled upon by this Court in Montañez v. Cipriano,[24] Teves v. People,[25] and Antone v. Beronilla.[26] | |||||