Premium Essay

Myrna P. Antone vs. Leo R. Beronilla

In:

Submitted By louann
Words 4668
Pages 19
FIRST DIVISION

MYRNA P. ANTONE, Petitioner, -versus- LEO R. BERONILLA, Respondent. | G.R. No. 183824 Present: CORONA,C.J., Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,*DEL CASTILLO, andABAD,**PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: December 8, 2010 | | | x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x D E C I S I O N PEREZ, J.: Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to nullify and set aside the issuances of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 102834, to wit: (a) the Resolution[1] dated 29 April 2008 dismissing the petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which assailed the trial court’s Orders[2] dated 20 September 2007 and 6 December 2007 in Criminal Case No. 07-0907-CFM for Bigamy; and (b) the Resolution[3] dated 18 July 2008 denying the motion for reconsideration of the first resolution. The trial court quashed the Information on the ground that the elements of Bigamy were rendered incomplete after herein respondent presented documents to prove a fact, which the court believed would negate the allegation in the Information that there was a first valid marriage. The evidence presented showed that respondent later obtained a judicial declaration of nullity of the first union following the celebration of a subsequent marriage. The Antecedents On 12 March 2007, herein petitioner Myrna P. Antone executed an Affidavit-Complaint[4] for Bigamy against Leo R. Beronilla before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City. She alleged that her marriage with respondent in 1978 had not yet been legally dissolved when the latter contracted a second marriage with one Cecile Maguillo in 1991. On 21 June 2007, the prosecution filed the

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

A.C. Digests

...Case: Antone VS Beronilla, G.R. No. 183824, December 8, 2010 Facts: On 12 March 2007, herein petitioner Myrna P. Antone executed an Affidavit-Complaint for Bigamy against Leo R. Beronilla before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City.  She alleged that her marriage with respondent in 1978 had not yet been legally dissolved when the latter contracted a second marriage with one Cecile Maguillo in 1991.    Issue: Whether the trial court erred in finding that the first essential element of bigamy, which is a first valid marriage contracted by private respondent is wanting. Arguments: Petitioner: Petitioner maintained that the respondent committed an act which has all the essential requisites of bigamy.  The prosecution pointed out that the marriage of petitioner and respondent on 18 November 1978 has not yet been severed when he contracted a second marriage on 16 February 1991, for which reason, bigamy has already been committed before the court declared the first marriage null and void on 27 April 2007 Respondent: Respondent moved to quash the Information on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. He informed the court that his marriage with petitioner was declared null and void by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Naval, Biliran on 26 April 2007; that the decision became final and executory on 15 May 200[7]; and that such decree has already been registered with the Municipal Civil Registrar on 12 June 2007. He argued that since the...

Words: 6479 - Pages: 26