G.R. No.

159218 || March 30, 2004

SALVADOR ABUNADO and ZENAIDA BIÑAS-ABUNADO, Petitioners, vs. Respondent.

FACTS:
In September 1967, Salvador Abunado, herein petitioner, married Narcisa Arceño. In 1988, Narcisa left for Japan to work
but returned to the Philippines in 1992, when she learned that her husband was having an extra-marital affair and has left
their conjugal home. After earnest efforts, Narcisa found Salvador in Quezon City cohabiting with Fe Corazon Plato. She
also discovered that he contracted a second marriage with a certain Zenaida Biñas. In 1995, an annulment case was filed by
Salvador against Narcisa. Few months later, a case for bigamy was filed by Narcisa against Salvador and Zenaida. Salvador
admitted that he first married Zenaida sometime in December, 1955. He had four children with her prior to their separation
in 1966. However, there was no evidence of their 1955 marriage so he and Zenaida remarried on January 10, 1989.

In 2001, the trial court convicted petitioner Salvador Abunado of bigamy and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment of six
(6) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day, as maximu, but was modified applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, where the accused is at the age of 76, an indeterminate prison term of two (2) years, four (4)
months and one (1) day of prision correccional as Minimum to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as Maximum.
Petitioner Zenaida Biñas was acquitted for insufficiency of evidence.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the proceedings in the bigamy case should have been suspended during the pendency of the annulment
case.
2. Whether the penalty imposed on him was improper.

RULINGS:
1. NO. The subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage was immaterial because prior to the
declaration of nullity, the crime had already been consummated. Moreover, petitioner’s assertion would only delay the
prosecution of bigamy cases considering that an accused could simply file a petition to declare his previous marriage void
and invoke the pendency of that action as a prejudicial question in the criminal case. Under the law, a marriage, even one
which is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding. In this case, even if
petitioner eventually obtained a declaration that his first marriage was void ab initio, the point is, and both the first and the
second marriage were subsisting before the first marriage was annulled.

2. NO. Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code imposes the penalty of prision mayor for bigamy. Under the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate penalty, the maximum term of which
shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the RPC, and the minimum
term of which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense. The penalty
next lower would be based on the penalty prescribed by the Code for the offense, without first considering any modifying
circumstance attendant to the commission of the crime. The determination of the minimum penalty is left by law to the
sound discretion of the court and it can be anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower without any reference to the
periods into which it might be subdivided. The modifying circumstances are considered only in the imposition of the
maximum term of the indeterminate sentence.

In light of the fact that petitioner is more than 70 years of age, which is a mitigating circumstance under Article 13,
paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence should be taken from prision
mayor in its minimum period which ranges from six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years, while the minimum term
should be taken from prision correccional in any of its periods which ranges from six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6)
years. Thus, the penalty is proper.

DECISION (underlined): WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR
No. 26135, finding petitioner Salvador S. Abunado guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy, and sentencing
him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as
minimum, to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, is AFFIRMED.

G.R. No. 164435 || September 29, 2009

VICTORIA S. JARILLO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

FACTS:
In May, 1974, Victoria Jarillo, herein petitioner, and Rafael Alocillo were married in a civil wedding ceremony. They
celebrated a church wedding ceremony on the following year. Appellant Victoria Jarillo thereafter contracted a subsequent
marriage with Emmanuel Ebora Santos Uy. They exchanged marital vows in 1995. In 1999, Emmanuel Uy filed against the
appellant for annulment of marriage. Jarillo was charged with bigamy. Accused-appellant Jarillo filed against Alocillo, in
2000, for declaration of nullity of their marriage. The court hereby finds accused Victoria Soriano Jarillo guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy, and suffer an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years of prision correccional, as
minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor, as maximum.

For her defense, petitioner insisted that (1) her 1974 and 1975 marriages to Alocillo were null and void because Alocillo
was allegedly still married to a certain Loretta Tillman at the time of the celebration of their marriage; (2) her marriages to
both Alocillo and Uy were null and void for lack of a valid marriage license; and (3) the action had prescribed, since Uy
knew about her marriage to Alocillo as far back as 1978. However, this was dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence.
Hence, this present petition.

ISSUES:
1. The CA committed error in not considering that the instant case of bigamy had already prescribed.
2. The CA committed error in not acquitting the petitioner but imposed an erroneous penalty under the Revised Penal
Code and the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

RULINGS:
1. NO. Under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, bigamy is punishable by prision mayor, which is classified
under Article 25 of said Code as an afflictive penalty. Article 90 thereof provides that "crimes punishable by other afflictive
penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years," while Article 91 states that "the period of prescription shall commence to run from
the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents x x x ." Petitioner asserts that
Uy had known of her previous marriage as far back as 1978; hence, prescription began to run from that time. Note that the
party who raises a fact as a matter of defense has the burden of proving it. The defendant or accused is obliged to produce
evidence in support of its defense; otherwise, failing to establish the same, it remains self-serving. Thus, for petitioner’s
defense of prescription to prosper, it was incumbent upon her to adduce evidence that as early as the year 1978, Uy already
obtained knowledge of her previous marriage.

2. NO. (NOTE: You may include this) (The Indeterminate Sentence Law provides that the accused shall be
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty, the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending
circumstances, could be properly imposed under the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum of which shall be within the
range of the penalty next lower than that prescribed by the Code for the offense, without first considering any modifying
circumstance attendant to the commission of the crime. The Indeterminate Sentence Law leaves it entirely within the sound
discretion of the court to determine the minimum penalty, as long as it is anywhere within the range of the penalty next
lower without any reference to the periods into which it might be subdivided. The modifying circumstances are considered
only in the imposition of the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence.)

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, it is clear that the penalty imposed on petitioner is proper. Under Article
349 of the Revised Penal Code, the imposable penalty for bigamy is prision mayor. The penalty next lower is prision
correccional, which ranges from 6 months and 1 day to 6 years. The minimum penalty of six years imposed by the trial
court is, therefore, correct as it is still within the duration of prision correccional. There being no mitigating or aggravating
circumstances proven in this case, the prescribed penalty of prision mayor should be imposed in its medium period, which is
from 8 years and 1 day to 10 years. Again, the trial court correctly imposed a maximum penalty of 10 years. However, for
humanitarian purposes, and considering that petitioner’s marriage to Alocillo has after all been declared by final judgment
to be void ab initio on account of the latter’s psychological incapacity, by reason of which, petitioner was subjected to
manipulative abuse, the Court deems it proper to reduce the penalty imposed by the lower courts. Thus, petitioner should be
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from Two (2) years, Four (4) months and One (1) day of
prision correccional, as minimum, to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum.

DECISION (underlined): IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision of the
Court of Appeals dated July 21, 2003, and its Resolution dated July 8, 2004 are hereby MODIFIED as to the penalty
imposed, but AFFIRMED in all other respects. Petitioner is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment
from Two (2) years, Four (4) months and One (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to Eight (8) years and One (1)
day of prision mayor, as maximum.

G.R. No. 182232 || October 6, 2008

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NENITA B. HU, accused-appellant

FACTS:
The undersigned Prosecutor accuses Ethel V. Genoves a.k.a. Merry Ann Genoves and Nenita B. Hu, of the crime of
Violation of Section 6 penalized under Section 7(b) of RA 80426 (Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale). Hu was the President
of Brighturn International Services, Inc. (Brighturn), a land-based recruitment agency duly licensed by the Philippine
Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) to engage in the business of recruitment and placement of workers abroad. Genoves
worked as a consultant and marketing officer of Brighturn, who was also connected with Riverland recruitment agency.
Private complainants Orillano, Panguelo, Abril and Garcia sought employment at Brighturn for the positions of factory
worker and electronic operator in Taiwan. Notwithstanding private complainants' compliance with all of the pre-
employment requirements, including the payment of placement fees, they were not able to leave the country to work abroad.
When Hu was not able to refund the amounts paid as placement fees upon demand, private complainants went to NBI to file
a complaint for illegal recruitment against Hu and Genoves. Hu averred that when she examined such receipts, she found
that private complainants paid their placement fees to Riverland and not to Brighturn as shown in the heading of the said
receipts which bore the name and address of Riverland and its proprietress, Genoves. Hu denied knowing Genoves.
However, the trial court found Hu guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, which
was affirmed by the CA. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: WON the court erred in finding Hu guilty BYD of illegal recruitment in large scale.

RULINGS:
The Supreme Court cannot sustain the conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale. Illegal recruitment is
committed when two elements concur, namely: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable
him to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (2) he undertakes any activity within the meaning
of "recruitment and placement" defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code. Recruitment and placement is "any act of
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers; and includes referrals, contact
services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, that any person or
entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in
recruitment and placement." The crime becomes Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale when the foregoing two elements
concur, with the addition of a third element - the recruiter committed the same against three or more persons, individually or
as group.

In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove that illegal recruitment was
committed against three or more persons. Illegal recruitment cannot successfully attach to the allegations of Panguelo, Abril
and Orillano, since they testified that they accomplished their pre-employment requirements through Brighturn from June
2001 up to October of the same year, a period wherein Brighturn's license to engage in recruitment and placement was still
in full force and effect. Failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of Hu beyond reasonable doubt does not absolve her of
her civil obligation to return the money she collected from private complaints. In the present case, the prosecution explicitly
proved that private complainants parted with substantial amounts of money upon the prodding and enticement of Hu on the
false pretense that she had the capacity to deploy them for employment abroad. In the end, private complainants were not
able to leave for work abroad or get their money back.

Neither does her acquittal herein exempt Hu from subsequent criminal prosecution for estafa provided that deceit,
which is an essential element of estafa, be proven by the prosecution. Apparently, Hu deluded private complainants into
believing that she had the capacity to send them abroad for employment. Through this hoax, she was able to convince
private complainants to surrender their money to her in the vain hope, as it turned out, of securing employment abroad. This
leaves SC a case of simple illegal recruitment.

In fine, the Court will have to discard the conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale meted out by the RTC,
since only one applicant abroad was recruited by Hu without license and authority from the POEA. Accordingly, Hu should
be held responsible for simple illegal recruitment only. Hu's unsuccessful indictment for illegal recruitment in large scale,
however, does not discharge her from her civil obligation to return the placement fees paid by private complainants.

Under Section 7(a) of Republic Act No. 8042,38 simple illegal recruitment is punishable by imprisonment of not
less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than twelve years and a fine of not less than two hundred thousand
pesos (P200,000.00) nor more than five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00). Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence
Law provides that if the offense is punishable by a special law, as in this case, the court shall impose on the accused an
indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by the said law and the minimum
of which shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. Accordingly, a penalty of eight (8) to twelve (12)
years of imprisonment should be meted out to Hu. In addition, a fine in the amount of P500,000.00; and indemnity to
private complainants -- Abril in the amount of P44,000.00, Panguelo in the amount of P50,000.00, Garcia in the amount of
P60,000.00 and Orillano in the amount of P50,000.00, with 12% legal interest per annum, reckoned from the filing of the
information until the finality of the judgment - is imposed.

DECISION (underlined): WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is PARTIALLY
GRANTED. The Decision dated 9 October 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.-CR.-H.C. No. 02243 affirming the
conviction of the accused-appellant Nenita B. Hu for the offense of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and sentencing her to
life imprisonment is hereby VACATED. A new Decision is hereby entered convicting the accused-appellant of the offense
of Simple Illegal Recruitment committed against private complainant Evangeline Garcia. She is sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years to twelve (12) years of imprisonment. She is ordered to pay a fine in the amount of
P500,000.00 and to indemnify private complainant Evangeline Garcia in the amount of P60,000.00, with 12% interest per
annum, reckoned from the filing of the information until the finality of the judgment.