Penuliar v. Republic

 

Penuliar v. Republic

G.R. No. 262486

January 11, 2023

 

FACTS:

                Petitioner married Deborah Desiree Baruela (Deborah) on November 7, 1995. After their marriage, the petitioner converted to Islam. Sometime thereafter, he met Ana Marie Palo (Ana) and married her on January 18, 2001. Upon discovery of the second marriage, Deborah filed an action for bigamy against petitioner and Ana before the RTC. The RTC rendered its Decision finding both petitioner and Ana guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Ireneo Penuliar is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years of prision correccional as minimum to ten (10) years of prision mayor as maximum and Ana Marie Palo is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to four (4) years of prision correctional as maximum. Ireneo Penuliar is also directed to pay private complainant Deborah Desiree Penuliar moral damages amounting to Php200,000.00. The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the RTC and CA, but both are denied. Hence, this petition.

 

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred in failing to appreciate petitioner’s lack of criminal intent when he contracted the second marriage.

 

HELD:

                YES. In Montañez v. Cipriano, the 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 or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code; (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. In Malaki v. People, the Court explained that while the Muslim Code allows subsequent marriages on certain conditions, the Muslim Code still maintains that its provisions shall not be construed to the prejudice of a non-Muslim. In fact, as discussed in the Malaki case, Article 13 (2) of the Muslim Code expressly states that the Civil Code governs marriages where either party to the marriage is a non-Muslim. In other words, when one of the parties to the marriage is a non-Muslim, the Civil Code governs, and the provision — which allows Muslims to contract subsequent marriages in certain conditions — cannot apply.

                Furthermore, as noted in the Malaki case, even assuming that the Muslim Code is applicable, there are conditions which must be met before a Muslim may contract a subsequent marriage: The Muslim husband must first notify the Shari'a Circuit Court, where his family resides, of his intent to contract a subsequent marriage. The clerk of court shall then serve a copy to the wife or wives. If any of them objects, the Muslim Code mandates the constitution of the Agama Arbitration Council, which shall hear the wife. Ultimately, the Shari'a Circuit Court decides whether to sustain the wife's objection. In other words, the consent of the wife, or the permission of the Shari'a Circuit Court if the wife refuses to give consent, is a condition sine qua non with respect to the subsequent marriage." Absent the wife's consent or the court's permission, the exculpatory provision of Article 180 shall not apply, since it only exempts from the charge of bigamy a Muslim husband who subsequently marries "in accordance with the provisions of the Muslim Code. In view of the foregoing, it is clear that petitioner cannot escape liability. The Muslim Code does not apply in this case because petitioner's first wife, Deborah, is a non-Muslim; thus, the provisions of the Civil Code and not the Muslim Code govern. In any case, even if the Muslim Code is applicable, petitioner would still be found guilty of the crime of bigamy because there is no showing that he complied with the conditions set forth in the Muslim Code. WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari dated October 1, 2022 is DENIED. The Decision dated November 2, 2021 and the Order dated August 3, 2022 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 41559, which affirmed the Decision dated December 8, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 87, insofar as it found petitioner Ireneo L. Penuliar GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy are AFFIRMED.