Capili v.
People
G.R. 183805
July 3,
2013
FACTS:
On June 28, 2004, petitioner was
charged with the crime of bigamy before the RTC of Pasig City. Petitioner
thereafter filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings alleging that: (1) there is a
pending civil case for declaration of nullity of the second marriage before the
RTC of Antipolo City filed by Karla Y. Medina-Capili; (2) in the event that the
marriage is declared null and void, it would exculpate him from the charge of
bigamy; and (3) the pendency of the civil case for the declaration of nullity
of the second marriage serves as a prejudicial question in the instant criminal
case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the subsequent
declaration of nullity of the second marriage is a ground for dismissal of the
criminal case for bigamy.
HELD:
No. It is undisputed that a second
marriage between petitioner and private respondent was contracted on December
8, 1999 during the subsistence of a valid first marriage between petitioner and
Karla Y. Medina-Capili contracted on September 3, 1999. Notably, the RTC of
Antipolo City itself declared the bigamous nature of the second marriage
between petitioner and private respondent. Thus, the subsequent judicial
declaration of the second marriage for being bigamous in nature does not bar
the prosecution of petitioner for the crime of bigamy.
People v.
Odtuhan
G.R. No.
191566
July 17,
2013
FACTS:
On 1980, Edgardo
Odtuhan
married Jasmin Modina. On 1993, respondent married Eleanor A. Alagon. Sometime
in 1994, he filed a petition for annulment of his marriage with Modina.The RTC
of Pasig City granted respondent’s petition and declared his marriage with
Modina void ab initio for lack of a valid marriage license.On 2003, Alagon
died. In the meantime, in June 2003, private complainant Evelyn Abesamis Alagon
learned of respondent’s previous marriage with Modina.She thus filed a
Complaint-Affidavitcharging respondent with Bigamy. On 2005, Odtuhan was indicted in an
Informationfor Bigamy. He filed an Omnibus Motion praying that his motion to
quash be granted on the grounds, to wit: (1) that the facts do not charge the
offense of bigamy; and (2) that the criminal action or liability has been
extinguished The RTC denied respondent’s Omnibus Motion and held that the facts
alleged in the information – that there was a valid marriage between respondent
and Modina and without such marriage having been dissolved, respondent
contracted a second marriage with Alagon – constitute the crime of bigamy. The
trial court further held that neither can the information be quashed on the
ground that criminal liability has been extinguished, because the declaration
of nullity of the first marriage is not one of the modes of extinguishing
criminal liability. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was likewise
denied. The CA granted the petition for certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the information for Bigamy may
be quashed.
HELD:
No. A motion to quash
information is the mode by which an accused assails the validity of a criminal
complaint or information filed against him for insufficiency on its face in
point of law, or for defects which are apparent in the face of the information.
The fundamental test in determining the sufficiency of the material averments
in an Information is whether or not the facts alleged therein, which are
hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the crime
defined by law. A motion to quash should be based on a defect in the
information which is evident on its fact. The ground that the facts charged do
not constitute an offense cannot be sustained since there is enough showing of
the sufficiency of the allegations to constitute bigamy as it contained all the
elements of the crime. What makes a person criminally liable for bigamy is when
he contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid
marriage. A judicial declaration of nullity is required before a valid subsequent
marriage can be contracted. He who contracts a second marriage before the
judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being
prosecuted for bigamy. If we allow respondent’s line of defense and the CA’s
ratiocination, a person who commits bigamy can simply evade prosecution by
immediately filing a petition for the declaration of nullity of his earlier
marriage and hope that a favorable decision is rendered therein before anyone
institutes a complaint against him.
Moreover, the information cannot be
quashed on the ground that criminal liability has been extinguished, because
the declaration of nullity of the first marriage is not one of the modes of
extinguishing criminal liability.
Santos v. Santos
G.R. 187061
October 8, 2014
FACTS:
On July 27, 2007, the Regional
Trial Court of Tarlac City declared petitioner Celerina J. Santos presumptively
dead after her husband, respondent Ricardo T. Santos, had filed a petition for
declaration of absence or presumptive death for the purpose of remarriage on
June 15, 2007. Ricardo remarried on September 17, 2008.The business did not
prosper. As a result, Celerina convinced him to allow her to work as a domestic
helper in Hong Kong. She allegedly applied in an employment agency in Ermita,
Manila, in February 1995. She left Tarlac two months after and was never heard
from again.Ricardo further alleged that he exerted efforts to locate Celerina. He
went to Celerina's parents in Cubao, Quezon City, but they, too, did not know
their daughter's whereabouts. He also inquired about her from other relatives
and friends, but no one gave him any information. Ricardo claimed that it was
as almost 12 years from the date of his Regional Trial Court petition since
Celerina left. He believed that she had
passed away. Celerina claimed that she learned about Ricardo's petition only
sometime in October 2008 when she could no longer avail the remedies of new
trial, appeal, petition for relief, or other appropriate remedies. On November
17, 2008, Celerina filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court
of Appeals on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. According
to Celerina, her true residence was in Neptune Extension, Congressional Avenue,
Quezon City.This residence had been her and Ricardo's conjugal dwelling since
1989 until Ricardo left in May 2008.As a result of Ricardo's misrepresentation,
she was deprived of any notice of and opportunity to oppose the petition
declaring her presumptively dead.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in
affirming the RTC
HELD:
Yes. A second marriage is bigamous
while the first subsists. However, a
bigamous subsequent marriage may be considered valid when the following are
present: The prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years; The
spouse present has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already
dead; There must be a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive
death of the absent spouse; and There is a court declaration of presumptive
death of the absent spouse. Marriages contracted prior to the valid termination
of a subsisting marriage are generally considered bigamous and void. If, as
Celerina contends, Ricardo was in bad faith when he filed his petition to
declare her presumptively dead and when he contracted the subsequent marriage,
such marriage would be considered void for being bigamous under Article 35(4)
of the Family Code. Celerina does not admit to have been absent. She also seeks
not merely the termination of the subsequent marriage but also the
nullification of its effects. She contends that reappearance is not a
sufficient remedy because it will only terminate the subsequent marriage but
not nullify the effects of the declaration of her presumptive death and the
subsequent marriage. Celerina is correct. Since an undisturbed subsequent
marriage under Article 42 of the Family Code is valid until terminated, the
"children of such marriage shall be considered legitimate, and the property
relations of the spouses in such marriage will be the same as in valid...
marriages."If it is terminated by mere reappearance, the children of the
subsequent marriage conceived before the termination shall still be considered
legitimate. Moreover, a judgment declaring presumptive death is a defense
against prosecution for bigamy.
Santiago v. People
G.R. No. 200233
July 15, 2015
FACTS:
Four months after solemnization of
marriage, Leonila (petitioner) and Nicanor Santiago were served an information
for Bigamy for the prosecution adduced that Nicaonor was still married to
Estela when he entered into the 2nd marriage; he was able to escape while
petitioner pleaded ‘not guilty’ relying on the fact that when she married him,
she thought he was single. She soon averred that their marriage was void due to
lack of marriage license, wherein she should not then be charged with bigamy.
11 years after inception if criminal case, Estela Galang, the first wife,
testified for the prosecution. She alleged that she had met petitioner and
introduced herself as the legal wife. Petitioner denied allegation and stated
that she met Estela only after she had already married Nicanor.
ISSUE:
Whether or
not petitioner is co-accused in the instant case of Bigamy and the marriage
between Leonila and Nicanor is valid
HELD:
Lower courts consistently found that petitioner indeed knew of the first marriage as shown by the totality of the following circumstances: (1) when Nicanor was courting and visiting petitioner in the house of her in-laws, they openly showed their disapproval of him (2) it was incredible for a learned person like petitioner to not know of his true civil status (3) Estela, who was the more credible witness, compared to petitioner who had various inconsistent testimonies, straightforwardly testified that she had already told petitioner on two occasions that the former was the legal wife of Nicanor. In People v. Archilla, knowledge of the second wife of the fact of her spouse’s existing prior marriage, constitutes an indispensable cooperation in the commission of Bigamy, which makes her responsible as an accomplice. She is not co-accused. She is guilty of Bigamy as an accomplice thereby sentenced to 6m arresto mayor to four years prision correccional.
Lasanas v.
People
G.R. No.
159031
June 23,
2014
FACTS:
On February 16, 1968, Judge Carlos B.
Salazar of the Municipal Trial Court of San Miguel, Iloilo solemnized the
marriage of accused Noel Lasanas and Socorro Patingo without the benefit of a
marriage license. The records show that Lasanas and Patingo had not executed
any affidavit of cohabitation to excuse the lack of the marriage license. On
August 27, 1980, Lasanas and Patingo reaffirmed their marriage vows in a
religious ceremony before Fr. Rodolfo Tamayo at the San Jose Church in Iloilo
City. They submitted no marriage license or affidavit of cohabitation for that
purpose. Both ceremonies were evidenced by the corresponding marriage
certificates. In 1982, Lasanas and Patingo separated de facto because of
irreconcilable differences. On December 27, 1993, the accused contracted
marriage with Josefa Eslaban in a religious ceremony solemnized by Fr. Ramon
Sequito at the Sta. Maria Church in Iloilo City. Their marriage certificate
reflected the civil status of the accused as single. On July 26, 1996, the
accused filed a complaint for annulment of marriage and damages against Socorro
in the RTC in Iloilo City, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 23133 and
raffled to Branch 39 of the RTC. The complaint alleged that Socorro had
employed deceit, misrepresentations and fraud in securing his consent to their
marriage; and that subsequent marital breaches, psychological incompatibilities
and her infidelity had caused him to suffer mental anguish, sleepless nights
and social humiliation warranting the award of damages.
Issues:
Whether or not that the RTC and the CA
incorrectly applied the provisions of Article 349 of the RPC
HELD:
Yes.
Based on the findings of the CA, this case has all the foregoing
elements attendant. The first and second elements of bigamy were present in
view of the absence of a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage between
the accused and Socorro. The requirement of securing a judicial declaration of
nullity of marriage prior to contracting a subsequent marriage is found in
Article 40 of the Family Code, to wit: Article 40. The absolute nullity of a
previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely
of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. The reason for the
provision was aptly discussed in Teves
v. People: The Family Code has settled once and for all the conflicting
jurisprudence on the matter. A declaration of the absolute nullity of a
marriage is now explicitly required either as a cause of action or a ground for
defense. Where the absolute nullity of a previous marriage is sought to be
invoked for purposes of contracting a second marriage, the sole basis
acceptable in law for said projected marriage to be free from legal infirmity
is a final judgment declaring the previous marriage void. The Family Law Revision
Committee and the Civil Code Revision Committee which drafted what is now the
Family Code of the Philippines took the position that parties to a marriage
should not be allowed to assume that their marriage is void even if such be the
fact but must first secure a judicial declaration of the nullity of their
marriage before they can be allowed to marry again. In fact, the requirement
for a declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage is also for the protection
of the spouse who, believing that his or her marriage is illegal and void,
marries again. With the judicial declaration of the nullity of his or her
marriage, the person who marries again cannot be charged with bigamy. In
numerous cases, this Court has consistently held that a judicial declaration of
nullity is required before a valid subsequent marriage can be contracted; or
else, what transpires is a bigamous marriage, reprehensible and immoral.
The accused’s defense of acting in
good faith deserves scant consideration especially because the records show
that he had filed a complaint for the annulment of his marriage with Socorro
prior to the institution of the criminal complaint against him but after he had
already contracted his second marriage with Josefa. But even such defense would
abandon him because the RTC dismissed his complaint for annulment of marriage
after the information for bigamy had already been filed against him, thus
confirming the validity of his marriage to Socorro. Considering that the
accused’s subsequent marriage to Josefa was an undisputed fact, the third
element of bigamy was established. Nonetheless, he submits that his marriage to
Josefa was invalid because of lack of a recorded judgment of nullity of
marriage. Such argument had no worth, however, because it was he himself who
failed to secure a judicial declaration of nullity of his previous marriage
prior to contracting his subsequent marriage. In Tenebro v. Court of Appeals, the
Court has explained that "since a marriage contracted during the
subsistence of a valid marriage is automatically void, the nullity of this
second marriage is not per se an argument for the avoidance of criminal
liability for bigamy.
Ronulo v.
People
G.R.
182438
July 2,
2014
FACTS:
Joey Umadac
and Claire Bingayen were scheduled to marry on 29 March 2003 at the Sta. Rosa
Catholic Parish Church in Ilocos Norte. But on the day of the wedding, the
church's officiating priest refused to solemnize the marriage because of lack
of a marriage license. With the couple and the guests already dressed for the
wedding, they headed to an Aglipayan Church. The Aglipayan priest, herein
petitioner Ronulo, conducted a ceremony on the same day where the couple took
each other as husband and wife in front of the guests. This was despite
Petitioner's knowledge of the couple's lack of marriage license. Petitioner was
eventually charged of violating Article 352 of the RPC for performing an
illegal marriage ceremony. The MTC did not believe Petitioner's defense that
what he did was an act of blessing and was not tantamount to solemnization of
marriage and was found guilty.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner committed an
illegal marriage.
HELD:
Yes.Article 352 of the RPC penalizes an
authorized solemnizing officer who shall perform or authorize any illegal
marriage ceremony. The elements of this crime are: authority of the solemnizing
officer; and his performance of an illegal marriage ceremony.The first element
is present since Petitioner himself admitted that he has authority to solemnize
a marriage.The second element is present since the alleged "blessing"
by Petitioner is tantamount to the performance of an illegal marriage
ceremony.There is no prescribed form or rite for the solemnization of a
marriage. However, Article 6 of the Family Code provides that it shall be
necessary: for the contracting parties to appear personally before the
solemnizing officer; and declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses
of legal age that they take each other as husband and wife.The first requirement
is present since petitioner admitted to it. The second requirement is likewise
present since the prosecution, through the testimony of its witnesses, proved
that the contracting parties personally declared that they take each other as
husband and wife.The penalty for violating Article 352 of the RPC is in
accordance with the provision of the Marriage Law, specifically Article 44,
which states that:
Section 44. General Penal Clause – Any violation of any provision
of this Act not specifically penalized, or of the regulations to be promulgated
by the proper authorities, shall be punished by a fine of not more than two
hundred pesos or by imprisonment for not more than one month, or both, in the
discretion of the court.
As such, Petitioner was held guilty of violating Article 352 and
was fined P200 as penalty.
