BIGAMY CASE:

That on may 9, 2005, Rod Rugista married Leni at the Manila Cathedral. Rod and Leni are living
in a house in Makati owned by Leni’s parents.Rod is a lawyer, while Leni is the head of real
eastate brokers for Manuela Realty who has projects all over the Philippines.
That on June 2014, Leni went to Cebu to inspect one of their project. She met a certain Bonita
Rugista, one of their Cebu Real Estate agents. Leni was surprised to meet someone with the
surname of “Rugista” considering that said family name is not common and that she already met
all of Rod’s relatives from davao and Italy.
She was also surprised to find out that Bonita Rugista’s husband is also a lawyer from davao.
Both were then surprised to find out that they are inlove with the same man and share the same
husband.
Rod married Bonita in a civil ceremony celebrated by a judge in June 12, 2013, 8 years after his
first marriage.

Based on the foregoing facts, Rod is being charged with the crime of bigamy punishable under
Article 349 of the RPC.
The Requisites for Bigamy under Art. 349. Bigamy. — 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.
(1) 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 has not been judicially
declared presumptively dead; (3) that he contracts a subsequent marriage; (4) the subsequent
marriage would have been valid had it not been for the existence of the first.People v. Dumpo, 62
Phil. 246 (1935)

In the case at Bar, Rod was legally married to Leni when he contracted the 2nd marriage Bonita,
thus satisfying the first requisite. Second, the first marriage has not been legally dissolved nor is
the spouse absent or presumptively dead. Third, he did in 2013, conract a subsequent marriage.
Fourth the subsequent marriage with Bonita would have been valid if it were not for the
existence of the first marriage. Therefore, Rod is charged with the crime of bigamy.

Complex Crime of Estafa through falsification of public documents:

In the said document of the deed of mortgage, it was discovered that Mario’s consent was given
on document published February 2013, when in fact, Mario died in the year 2012. This
establishes that Mario could not have possibly given his consent, being dead at the time
document was signed.

On September 2013, it was discovered that, without the consent of Leni or Manuel, Rod
mortgaged the property to the Agelto spouses in January 2013. Agelto spouses then filed a case
for the closure of the mortgage since Rod ended up in default in the mortgage. To the prejudice
of both Leni and Manuel given that they have vested rights in the property of their father being a
legitime.

The acts of Rod in this case constitute the crime of Estafa through falsification of public
documents.

The crime of falsification of a public document penalized under Article 172 of the RPC. The
following requisites must concur, to wit:

(1) That the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who took
advantage of his official position;

(2)That he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in article 171 of the Revised
Penal Code (which in this case involves forging a signature);

(3)That the falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial document

In the case at bar, Rod’s acts constitute all of the requisites necessary for the crime of
falsification of public documents. First, being a private individual and a lawyer, took advantage
of his position as a lawyer to obtain the forged documents needed to perfect the sale of the
prorperty. Second, he committed the act of forging a signature, which is part of those enumerated
in Article 171 of the RPC, regarding acts that constitute falsification. Third, Rod committed the
forgery on a public document which is the deed of mortgage. Also, to obtain power over the
administration of property, Rod in his capacity as a Laywer managed to secure a Special Power
of Attorney to administer the property.

From the foregoing facts, it can also be established that Rod is guilty of the Crime of estafa
under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The Requisites of Estafa are as follows:

To secure conviction for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, the
Court has time and again ruled that the following requisites must concur:
(1) that the accused made false pretenses or fraudulent representations as to his power,
influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions;

(2) that such false pretenses or fraudulent representations were made prior to or
simultaneous with the commission of the fraud;

(3) that such false pretenses or fraudulent representations constitute the very cause which
induced the offended party to part with his money or property; and

(4) that as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage

In the case at bar, Rod’s actions caused damage to his family and to the Agelto spouses. Based
on the circumstances, it is evident that Rod misrepresented that he had the authority to mortgage
the house as he forged the signature needed, which amounts to the first requisite, in that he used
his power and influence to obtain the required documents to have the authority as the husband of
Leni to sell the property. The fraudulent representation comes in as he usurped the authority over
the property, which he has no vested right to. Second, Rod committed fraud by misrepresenting
the power to mortage the property to the Agelto spouses in January 2013, and simultaneously
made such false pretense in the obtaining the consent of manuel in the deed of mortgage and
through the special power of attorney. The simultaneous act occurred on February 2013. Third,
the acts of Rod in committing the false pretense and fraudulent representation caused and
induced the offended party who is Manuel, jeopardized his rights to the property. The fourth
requisite is also present in that, Rod’s default to the mortgage prejudiced the rights of Leni and
Manuel because the property was to be foreclosed, thus causing damage.
It is noteworthy to add that Rod also prejudiced and caused damage to the Agelto spouses, seeing
that they would not have lent him money if they knew that Rod did not have the rights to
mortgage the property.

According Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, “Penalty for complex crimes. — When a single
act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means
for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be
applied in its maximum period.” Based on this article, Rod, in order to commit estafa, falsified a
public document, thus he is charged with the complex crime of estafa through falsification of
public documents.

Administrative Case for Gross Immorality as a Lawyer:

Rod’s actions constitute gross immorality in contracting not one, but two bigamous marriages
after his marriage to Leni on 2005. The crime of bigamy falls within the definition of immoral
conduct under case law. In the case of Arnobit v Arnobit:

“Immoral conduct has been described as that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless
as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. To be
the basis of disciplinary action, such conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral.
That is, it must be so corrupt as to virtually constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as
to shock the common sense of decency.”

“As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also
be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral
standards of the community.[7] A member of the bar and an officer of the court is not only
required to refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping a mistress but must also so behave
himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the impression that he is flouting those
moral standards.”

Futhermore, in the case of Villasanta v. Peralta, the respondent lawyer married the complainant
while his marriage with his first wife was subsisting. We held that the respondents act of
contracting the second marriage was contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality. The lack
of good moral character required by the Rules of Court disqualified the respondent from
admission to the Bar.

Jurisprudence holds in RE: SC DECISION DATED A.C. No. 7940

MAY 20, 2008, Rod’s acts of falsification also constitutes a ground for disbarment against him.

This Courts decision in said falsification case had long become final and executory. In In Re:
Disbarment of Rodolfo Pajo, the Court held that in disbarment cases, it is no longer called upon
to review the judgment of conviction which has become final. The review of the conviction no
longer rests upon this Court.

Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a lawyer may be removed or suspended on the
following grounds: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office; (4) grossly
immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of the
lawyers oath; (7) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (8) corruptly
or willfully appearing as a lawyer for a party to a case without authority so to do.

This Court has ruled that the crime of falsification of public document is contrary to justice,
honesty, and good morals and, therefore, involves moral turpitude. Moral turpitude includes
everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. It involves an act
of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to
society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man
and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. Therefore, Rod is
being charged with disbarment due to gross immoral conduct.