Garcia, Regina Via G. // Jaraplasan, Chelin Monica B. // Militar, Natasha Czarina A.

//
Oriesga, Matt Rose Louie C. // Sabella, Christine Faith R.


BIGAMY

The Supreme Court has decided five cases regarding bigamy.

In the case of Tenebro vs. CA, 423 SCRA 272, the Supreme Court ruled that
contracting a subsequent marriage while a subsisting marriage exists is a ground for bigamy.
As stated in Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, the four elements of bigamy are (1) that
the offender has been legally married, (2) that the first 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, (3) that he contracts a second or subsequent marriage and
(4) that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites of validity. When
these elements are present, the person is guilty of bigamy.

In the case of Manuel vs. People, G.R. No. 165842, November 29, 2005, the
Supreme Court ruled that in cases of subsequent marriages celebrated under the effectivity
of the Family Code, where the absent spouse is believed to be dead; there must be a judicial
declaration of presumptive death. Before such declaration, it will be held that the remarriage
of the other spouse is bigamous even if done in good faith.
In the case of Morigo vs. People, G.R. No. 145226, February 6, 2004, the Supreme
Court ruled that there was no actual marriage ceremony performed between parties by a
solemnizing officer. Mere signing of the marriage contract by the two, without the presence
of a solemnizing officer, renders the marriage void ab initio in accordance with Articles 3
and 4 of the Family Code. Such act alone, without more, cannot be deemed to constitute an
ostensibly valid marriage for which one might be held liable for bigamy unless he first
secures a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage before he contracts a subsequent
marriage.
In the case of Jarillo vs. People, 601 SCRA 236, September 29, 2009, the Supreme
Court ruled that the crime of bigamy has a prescriptive period and begins on the day the
crime was discovered by the offended party of the bigamous marriage. Also, mere alleging
that the previous marriage is not enought for voiding a marriage, judicial declaration of
nullity of marraige is needed to avoid bigamy. A defense is not effective when there is no
proof that the marraige was void.

In the case of Nollora, Jr., vs. People, 657 SCRA 330, Sept. 7, 2011, the Supreme
Court ruled that contracting a subsequent marriage without legally dissolving a subsisting
marriage constitute a criminal liability of bigamy. Although the truth or falsehood of the
declaration of ones religion in the marriage certificate is not an essential requirement for
marriage, such omissions are sufficient proofs liable for bigamy.
From the above cases, the Supreme Court has laid down both substantive and
procedural requirements for bigamy. These substantive requirements are that in bigamy
there are four elements present (Tenebro case) and contracting a subsequent marriage
without legally dissolving a subsisting marriage (Nollora case).
The procedural requirements that are in bigamy are if a present spouse has a
subsisting marriage celebrated under the Family Code and was no judicial declaration of
presumptive death of the previous spouse was presented (Manuel case), no judicial
declaration of nullity of marriage of the previous marriage (Morigo case), and that the crime
of bigamy has a prescriptive period and begins on the day the crime was discovered by the
offended party (Jarillo case).
However, when one contracts a marriage without complying the formal requisites of
marriage, the marriage is void ab initio. Therefore, when a previous spouse contracts a
subsequent marriage while the previous marriage is void, the spouse cannot be liable for
bigamy (Jarillo case).
Through synthesis of the above cases, requirements of bigamy were established and
these are the substantive and procedural requirements.





























TENEBRO VS. COURT OF APPEALS
423 SCRA 272 (February 18, 2004)

A. Legal Issue

Whether or not the petitioner, Veronico Tenebro, is liable for bigamy.

B. Legal Facts

The petitioner of this case is Veronico Tenebro and the respondent is the Court of
Appeals. The Regional Trial Court rendered the decision that Tenebro was guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for the crime of bigamy for contracting marriages while there was a
subsisting marriage. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision.
Tenebro married Leticia Ancajas in 1990. In the 1991, he revealed to Ancajas that he
was previously married to Hilda Villareyes in 1986 and he showed a photocopy of the
marriage contract to Ancajas as proof. In 1993, he contracted another marriage with Nilda
Villegas. Ancajas later filed a complaint for bigamy against Tenebro. Petitioner denied the
allegations that he was previously married to Villareyes and appealed that his second
marriage was annulled on the grounds of psychological incapacity which retroacts the date
of the second marriage and thus, he concludes that he is not liable for bigamy.

C. Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that Veronico Tenebro is liable for bigamy.

D. Reasoning

The following elements of the crime of bigamy are stated under Article 349 of the
Revised Penal Code which are (1) that the offender has been legally married, (2) that the
first 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, (3) that he contracts a
second or subsequent marriage and (4) that the second or subsequent marriage has all the
essential requisites of validity.
In the case at bar, the court ruled that all the requisites were present. First, the
petitioners marriage with Villareyes is valid because the prosecution presented sufficient
evidence, such as the copy of the marriage contract. Second, the petitioner contracted
another marriage with Ancajas while there was a subsisting marriage. As for the annulment
of his marriage to Ancajas on the grounds of psychological incapacity, it is absolutely no
moment insofar as the states penal laws are concerned. Hence, Veronico Tenebro is liable
for bigamy.

E. Policy

Marriage is not just an ordinary contract between parties but a special contract
entered between a man and a woman in accordance with the law. It cannot be easily
dissolved. Therefore, the provisions that constitute bigamy not only prevent people from
committing the said crime but it also serves as a medium to preserve the sanctity of
marriage.










MANUEL VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 165842 (November 29, 2005)

A. Legal Issue

Whether or not Eduardo Manuel is guilty of bigamy.

B. Legal Facts

Eduardo Manuel who was previously married to Rubylus Gaa, contracted a
subsequent marriage with Tina Gandalera. Tina, after being deserted by Eduardo, inquired
with the NSO in Manila and found out that the latter had been previously married. Tina sued
Eduardo for bigamy.
The RTC rendered judgment finding Eduardo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
bigamy. It declared that Eduardos belief that his first marriage had been dissolved because
of his first wifes twenty (20) year absence, even if true, did not negate the criminal intent on
his part when he contracted a subsequent marriage. Eduardo appealed to the CA. CA
affirmed the decision of the RTC. Eduardo filed the petition for review on certiorari
Eduardo contended that when he married Tina on April 22, 1996, he did so in good
faith and without any malicious intent. He maintained that at the time that he married the
private complainant, he was of the honest belief that his first marriage no longer
subsisted. Eduardo further claimed that he was only forced to marry his first wife because
she threatened to commit suicide. Rubylus was charged with estafa and was imprisoned. He
visited her and never saw her again after. He had not heard from Rubylus for more than 20
years. He did not know that he had to go to court to seek for the nullification of his first
marriage before marrying Tina.

C. Ruling

Yes. Eduardo Manuels subsequent marriage was bigamous.

D. Reasoning

It was the burden of the petitioner to prove his defense that when he married the
private complainant in 1996, he was of well-grounded belief that his first wife was already
dead, as he had not heard from her for more than 20 years. He should have presented in
evidence the declaration of presumptive death of his first wife as required by Article 349 of
the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Article 41 of the Family Code. Such judicial
declaration also constitutes proof that the petitioner acted in good faith, and would exculpate
the criminal intent when he married the private complainant and, as a consequence, he could
not be held guilty of bigamy in such case. The petitioner, however, failed to discharge his
burden. His subsequent marriage was celebrated when the Family Code was already in
effect, in which, a judicial declaration of presumptive death of the absent spouse is a
requisite for a remarriage. Eduardos marriage with Tina was therefore void.

E. Policy

It should also be a requisite that before the solemnizing officer solemnizes a
subsequent marriage; he must first ascertain whether a judicial declaration of presumptive
death is needed to be obtained by the spouse who alleges the absence of the other. This
would prevent contracting parties, whether in bad faith or in good faith, commit the crime of
bigamy.





MORIGO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
GR No. 145226 (February 6, 2004)

A. Legal Issue

Whether or not the petitioner, Morigo, should have filed a declaration for the nullity
of his marriage with Barrete before contracting another marriage in order to be free from the
bigamy case.

B. Legal Facts

Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates in Bohol. They lost contacts for a
while but after receiving a card from Barrete and various exchanges of letters, they became
sweethearts. They got married in 1990. Barrete went back to Canada for work and in 1991
she filed petition for divorce in Ontario Canada, which was granted. In 1992, Morigo
married Lumbago. He subsequently filed a complaint for judicial declaration of nullity on
the ground that there was no marriage ceremony. Morigo was then charged with bigamy
and moved for a suspension of arraignment since the civil case pending posed a prejudicial
question in the bigamy case. Morigo pleaded not guilty claiming that his marriage with
Barrete was void ab initio. Petitioner contented he contracted second marriage in good faith.

C. Ruling

No, Morigo did not need to file a declaration of nullity of marriage to be free from
bigamy.

D. Reasoning

Morigos marriage with Barrete is void ab initio considering that there was no actual
marriage ceremony performed between them by a solemnizing officer instead they just
merely signed a marriage contract. The petitioner does not need to file declaration of the
nullity of his marriage when he contracted his second marriage with Lumbago. Therefore, he
did not commit bigamy and is acquitted in the case filed.

E. Policy

The society will benefit from the law used to answer the legal issue in a way that
before a case can be constituted as bigamous, the circumstances of each particular case must
be holistically considered and evaluated. The elements of bigamy should be present in the
case before it can be ruled out to be bigamous. Mere signing of the marriage contract by the
two, without the presence of the solemnizing officer thus there was no actual marriage
ceremony that took place.














JARILLO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
601 SCRA 236 (September 29, 2009)

A. Legal Issue

Whether or not the petitioner, Voctoria Jarillo, is liable for bigamy.

B. Legal Facts

Petitioner, Victoria Jarillo was married to Rafael Alocillo in 1974 and while the first
marriage is in existence, Jarillo married Uy in 1979. Upon discovery of Jarillos first
marriage, Uy filed a case against Jarillo for bigamy in 1999. Jarillo alledge that the action is
irrelevant as Uy already have the knowledge about her prior marriage to Alocillo. Jarillo
filed a case for declaration of nullity of marriage to Alocillo in 2005 but still she was found
guilty for the crime of bigamy in 2009.

C. Ruling

The argument of Jarillo is indefensable as the crime of bigamy is established.

D. Reasoning

The crime of bigamy has a prescriptive period and begins on the day the crime was
discovered by the offended party of the bigamous marriage. On the case at bar, Jarillos
defense is not effective as she was unable to prove that Uy knew of her prior marriage as of
1978. Article 40 of the family code must be retroactive in application since article 256 of the
family code states that the code shall have retroactive effect as long as it does not prejudice
or do not impair vested rights. Procedural laws are applied retroactively as it does not violate
any rights to whom it has adverse effect. No rights that are vested are attached to procedural
laws. This is the general rule.
Wherefore, petitioners motion for reconsideration is denied.

E. Policy

Simply alleging that a previous marriage did not exist is not enough evidence to
declare it void and filing for declaration of nullity of marriage after the discovery of bigamy
is untenable. Filing for declaration of nullity of marriage should be done prior to contracting
a subsequent marriage to avoid bigamy. This law helps uphold the sacred bond between
spouses in marriage.


















NOLLORA, JR. VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
657 SCRA 330 (September 7, 2011)

A. Legal Issue

Whether or not, petitioner Nollora incurred criminal liability of bigamy.

B. Legal Facts

The trial court found accused Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. guilty of bigamy and affirmed
by the Court of Appeals, thus, a petition for review was filed. On December 8, 2001, the
accused Nollora, being then legally married to one Jesusa Nollora, and as said marriage has
not been legally dissolved and still subsisting, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously contract a subsequent marriage with Rowena Geraldino. He admitted having
contracted two marriages however claims that he is a Muslim convert and obtained a
Certificate of Conversion. He kept it as a secret of being a Muslim since the society does not
approve of marrying a Muslim. He also indicated that he was single despite his first
marriage to keep the first marriage secret.

C. Ruling

The petitioner, Atilano O. Nollora, Jr., is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy.

D. Reasoning

The court denied his petition and proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy.
The elements of the crime of bigamy are (1) that the offender has been legally married, (2)
that 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, (3) that he
contracts a second or subsequent marriage, and (4) that the second or subsequent marriage
has all the essential requisites for validity. All these elements are present in the case of
Nollora.

E. Policy

Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman, a
foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution. It is right and just to protect the
sanctity of the marriage and will be held criminally liable if anyone will try to destroy the
sanctity of it.