Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
EXPLANATION:
Seven jurisprudences are discussed in this case synthesis, to wit: Leonila G. Santiago
v. People, Eduardo Manuel v. People, Vitangcol v. People, Cacho v. People, Mercado v. Tan,
People v. Otduhan, and Antone Vs. Beronilla. All the herein cited cases were decided by the
Honorable Supreme Court from 2000 to 2016, focusing on the crime of bigamy.
All these cases were able to establish the elements of bigamy as provided for in Article
349 of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:
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 for validity
These elements were well-established in the subject jurisprudence. However, the issue of
the validity of the first and subsequent marriage was common. Specifically, the requisite of a
judicial declaration of the first marriage.
Although the Supreme Court magnified the issue lack of knowledge and deliberate
flaw in subsequent marriage, the Supreme Court explicitly required judicial declaration of
first marriage. The ruling of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals was affirmed
by the Supreme Court. What was cited and underscored in this jurisprudence is the penalty
provided for in Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:
The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall
contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been
legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively
dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings.
[Emphasis supplied]
More so, lack of knowledge is not a valid defense to suffice this requirement. Worse,
is to commit deliberate act to put a flaw in the marriage. In the case of Santiago, the Supreme
Court found no merit on the defense of the petitioner that subsequent marriage is not valid
for her lack of knowledge of the prior marriage of husband, when facts of the case did not
support her contention. As such, a more severe punishment was rendered not only for not
satisfying the requirement for a judicial declaration, but also for the knowledge of a prior
marriage, yet subsequent marriage was intentionally committed with legal impediments.
Similar in the case of Santiago, the ruling in the case of Manuel v. People required the
judicial declaration of marriage to render subsequent marriage valid. The Supreme Court
provided the rationale for the need of judicial declaration. The provision was taken from
Article 486 of the Spanish Penal Code, to wit:
This means that the reason why bigamy is considered a felony is to preserve and ensure the
juridical tie of marriage established by law. The Supreme Court further explains the spirit of
the law, to wit:
The phrase or before the absent spouse had been declared presumptively dead by means
of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings was incorporated in the Revised Penal
Code because the drafters of the law were of the impression that in consonance with the
civil law which provides for the presumption of death after an absence of a number of
years, the judicial declaration of presumed death like annulment of marriage
should be a justification for bigamy. [Emphasis supplied]
Omission is not an excuse. The legal maxim ignorantia legis non excusant , hence, lack
of knowledge does not excuse anyone from the crime of bigamy, if requirement for a valid
judicial declaration is not sufficed prior to the second marriage.
The Ruling in Vitangcol
Basically, the same issue was raised in the case of Vitangcol. The Supreme Court once
again stressed that, it is not for a party to decide whether the first marriage is void, it is
properly determined by the court. Parties cannot declare nullity of marriage for themselves.
It is still the function of the Court, regardless if the marriage is presumed invalid for lack of
record in the Civil Registrar. Hence, the need for a judicial declaration prior to the second
marriage.
The basis for the need for judicial declaration in this case is Article 40 of the Family
Code. Under Article 40 of the Family Code, 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. But here, the final judgment declaring null and void accused
previous marriage came not before the celebration of the second marriage, but after, when
the case for bigamy against accused was already tried in court. What constitutes the crime of
bigamy is the act of any person who shall contract a second subsequent marriage before the
former marriage has been legally dissolved.
Also Section 29 of Act No. 3613 (Marriage Law), was used as basis to wit:
Illegal marriages. Any marriage subsequently contracted by any person during
the lifetime of the first spouse shall be illegal and void from its performance,
unless:
(a) The first marriage was annulled or dissolved;
(b) The first spouse had been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the
second marriage without the spouse present having news of the absentee
being alive, or the absentee being generally considered as dead and believed
to be so by the spouse present at the time of contracting such subsequent
marriage, the marriage as contracted being valid in either case until declared
null and void by a competent court. [Emphasis supplied]
As such, the need for a judicial declaration is not only provided in Article 349 of
the Revised Penal Code, but as well as in Section 40 of the Family Code and Section 29
of the Marriage Law. The two latter laws supplement the penal provision, hence,
further strengthen the requirement of a judicial declaration of marriage.
What was emphasized by the Supreme Court is the period of acquiring judicial
declaration of marriage. What was required by the law is prior to the subsequent marriage,
it is clear and well-established.
According to the Supreme Court the time of filing of the criminal complaint or
information is material only for determining prescription. It has been held in a number of
cases that a judicial declaration of nullity is required before a valid subsequent marriage can
be contracted.
At this moment the Supreme Court clarified the conflict in Morigo decision and Mercado
decision by reading Section 40 of Family Code. The specific provision, which reads:
ART. 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
marriage void.
The Supreme Court settled the conflicting jurisprudence on the need for a judicial
declaration of nullity of the previous marriage. The Supreme Court concluded, in essence,
that under the Family Code a subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the first
marriage is immaterial in a bigamy case because, by then, the crime had already been
consummated. Otherwise stated, this Court declared that a person, who contracts a
subsequent marriage absent a prior judicial declaration of nullity of a previous one, is guilty
of bigamy.
The Cacho Case is different from all the previous case for it did not require a judicial
declaration of marriage as a requirement for subsequent marriage since the initial marriage
is void ab initio.