COMPLAINT FOR BIGAMY FILED BY THE SUBSEQUENT SPOUSE:

G.R. No. 183805. July 3, 2013.*

JAMES WALTER P. CAPILI, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and
SHIRLEY TISMO-CAPILI, respondents.

Facts:
Petitioner Capili (Capili) was previously married to Karla Medina-Capili (Karla) and without
the said marriage having been legally dissolved or annulled, Capili contracted a second
marriage with the private respondent, Shirley Tismo-Capili (Shirley).
An action for declaration of nullity of the second marriage was filed by Karla. On the
otherhand, Shirley filed a cpmplaint for bigamy. Consequently, Capili filed a Motion to
Suspend Proceeding on account that there’s a pending civil case for declaration of nullity
of the second marriage and in the event that the marriage is declared null and void, it
would it would exculpate him from the charge of bigamy. Later, he filed a Motion to
Dismiss the case for bigamy on the ground that the second marriage between him and
private respondent had already been declared void by the RTC. The lower court granted
the MTD.

CA reversed the decision of the RTC. MR was filed by Capili but CA denied the same.

Issue:
Whether whether or not the subsequent declaration of nullity of the second marriage is a
ground for dismissal of the criminal case for bigamy.

Ruling:
Negative.
The elements of the crime of bigamy, therefore, are: (1) the offender has been legally
married; (2) 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.9

In the present case, it appears that all the elements of the crime of bigamy were
present when the Information was filed on June 28, 2004.

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.
G.R. No. 119063. January 27, 1997.*
JOSE G. GARCIA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES and ADELA TEODORA P. SANTOS, respondents

Facts:
Petitioner Jose G. Garcia (Garcia) filed a complaint for Bigamy against his wife,
Adela Teodora Santos (Santos), private respondent alleging that the latter was previously
married with Reynaldo Quiroca.

Santos filed a Motion to Quash alleging the prescription of the offense stating that
15 years had already lapsed after the discovery of Garcia of the previous marriage.Trial
court granted the Motion to Quash.

MR being denied by the lower court, Garcia went to CA. the petitioner argued that bigamy
was a public offense, hence “the offended party is not the first or second (innocent)
spouse but the State whose law/policy was transgressed.” He tried to distinguish bigamy
from private offenses such as adultery or concubinage “where the private complainant
is necessarily the offended party,” thus, the prescriptive period for the former should
commence from the day the State, being the offended party, discovered the offense,
which in this case was on 28 August 1991 when the petitioner filed his complaint before
the Prosecutor’s Office. The petitioner added that the “interchanging use” in Article 91 of
the RPC of the terms “offended party,” “authorities,” and “their agents” supports his view
that the state is the offended party in public offenses.

The CA sided with Santos on the ground of prescription. Hence, this petition.

Issue:
Whether or not bigamy is a public offense and therefore the prescription should
have run from the time the State discovered its commission?

Ruling:
Negative.
It is true that bigamy is a public offense. But, it is entirely incorrect to state, as the
petitioner does, that only the State is the offended party in such case.

Article 91 of the RPC provides that “[t]he 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 . . . .” This rule makes no distinction between a public crime and a private
crime. In both cases then, the discovery may be by the “offended party, the authorities,
or their agents.”

Article 91 does not define the term “offended party.

We find its definition in Section 12, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court as “the person against
whom or against whose property, the offense was committed.

It is settled that in bigamy, both the first and the second spouses may be the offended
parties depending on the circumstances
G.R. No. 191566. July 17, 2013.*
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. EDGARDO V. ODTUHAN,
respondent.

Facts:

On July 2, 1980, Respondent (Odtuhan) married Jasmin Modina (Modina).3 On October

28, 1993, Odtuhan married Eleanor A. Alagon (Alagon). He then file an annulment case
against Modina before the lower court on the ground of absence of marriage license,
which was granted.

Before Alagon died, she learned that Odtuhan was previously married with Modina, thus
she file a complaint for bigamy against Odtuhan.

Odtuhan file an Omnibus Motion which was denied finding that his marriage with Modina
was actually valid and his second marriage with Alagon constitutes bigamy and the
annulment of his marriage is not one of the modes that extinguish criminal liability.

On appeal via certiorari to CA, the latter reversed that of lower court’s. CA ruled that the
first element of bigamy (first marriage is valid) is lacking therefore no bigamy has been
committed. Hence, this petition.

Issue:
Whether or not, Odtuhan should be held liable for bigamy?

Held:
Affirmative.

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 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; or else, what transpires is a bigamous marriage, reprehensible and immoral.
What makes a person criminally liable for bigamy is when he contracts a second or
subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage. Parties to the marriage
should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted
to the judgment of competent courts and only when the nullity of the marriage is so
declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is no such declaration, the
presumption is that the marriage exists. Therefore, 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.
G.R. No. 164435. September 29, 2009.*
VICTORIA S. JARILLO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Facts:
On May 24, 1974, Victoria Jarillo (Jarillo) and Rafael Alocillo (Alocillo) were married in a
civil wedding ceremony solemnized by Hon. Monico C. Tanyag.

On 1979, Jarillo thereafter contracted a subsequent marriage with Emmanuel Ebora

Santos Uy (Uy), at the City Court of Pasay City.

Uy then filed for annulment of marriage before the RTC of Manila. Jarillo was charged of
bigamy. Parethetically, Jarillo filed an action for the declaration of nullity of his marriage
with Alocillo. The court found Jarillo guilty of bigamy.

For her defense, she insisted that her marriage with Alocillo is null and void, since the
latter was still married with certain Loretta Tilllman at the time of their marriage, and her
marriage with Uy was void as well for want of valid marriage license.

CA affirmed RTC’s decision finding Jarillo guilty.

In the meantime, Jarillo’s marriage with Alocillo was declared null and void on the ground
of Alocillo’s psychological incapacity. But CA ruled citing the case of Tenebro, “[t]he
subsequent declaration of nullity of her first marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity, while it retroacts to the date of the celebration of the marriage insofar as the
vinculum between the spouses is concerned, the said marriage is not without legal
consequences, among which is incurring criminal liability for bigamy”.

Issue:
Whether or not, Jarillo should be held liable for bigamy?

Ruling:
Affirmative.

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. We cannot allow that.

The outcome of the civil case for annulment of petitioner’s marriage to [private
complainant] had no bearing upon the determination of petitioner’s innocence or guilt in
the criminal case for bigamy, because all that is required for the charge of bigamy to
prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at the time the second marriage is
contracted.

The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of petitioner’s two marriages to Alocillo

cannot be considered a valid defense in the crime of bigamy.
 G.R. No. 206284. February 28, 2018.*

REDANTE SARTO y MISALUCHA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

respondent.

Facts:

Redante was charged with the crime of bigamy for allegedly contracting two (2)
marriages: the first, with Maria Socorro G. Negrete (Socorro), and the second, without
having the first one legally terminated, with private complainant Fe R. Aguila (Fe).

During his marriage with Socorro, the latter went to Canada for work. Eventually, she
became citizen therein and allegedly successfully obtained a divorce decree against
Redante in Canada.

Redante met Fe to whom he admitted that he was previously married to Maria Socorro
who, however, divorced him. Despite this admission, their romance blossomed and
culminated in their marriage.

However, their relationship allegedly turned sour as Socorro met Redante as she went
back in the Philippines hence she file a complaint for bigamy against Redante.

Thereafter, Socorro married Alexander Campbell in Canada.

RTC found Redante guilty for the crime of bigamy which later affirmed by the CA.

Issue:
Whether or not, Redante should be held liable for the crime of bigamy?

Ruling:
Redante has the burden of proving the termination of the first marriage prior to the
celebration of the second. The Court is convinced that Redante failed to prove the
existence of the divorce as a fact or that it was validly obtained prior to the celebration of
his subsequent marriage to Fe.
G.R. No. 165842. November 29, 2005.*
EDUARDO P. MANUEL, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Facts:

Eduardo was married to Rubylus Gaña before Msgr. Feliciano Santos in Makati on
1975. He met the private complainant Tina B. Gandalera in Dagupan City sometime in
January 1996. Eventually, as one thing led to another. Eduardo proposed marriage on
several occasions. They were married on April 22, 1996. It appeared in their marriage
contract that Eduardo was “single.”

Sometime in January 2001, Eduardo took all his clothes, left, and did not return.
Worse, he stopped giving financial support

She learned that Eduardo had been previously married. She secured an NSO-certified
copy of the marriage contract.7 She was so embarrassed and humiliated when she
learned that Eduardo was in fact already married when they exchanged their own vows.

For his part, he alleged that he met Tina in a bar where she was a GRO. He
contended that he informed Tina that he was already a married man but she nevertheless
agreed to marry him. He testified that he declared he was “single” in his marriage contract
with Tina because he believed in good faith that his first marriage was invalid. He did not
know that he had to go to court to seek for the nullification of his first marriage before
marrying Tina.

RTC found Eduardo guilty of the crime charged (bigamy) which was later affirmed
by the CA.

Issue:
Whether or not, Eduardo should be held liable of the crime of bigamy?

Ruling:
Affirmative.
In the present case, the prosecution proved that the petitioner was married to Gaña
in 1975, and such marriage was not judicially declared a nullity; hence, the marriage is
presumed to subsist.36 The prosecution also proved that the petitioner married the private
complainant in 1996, long after the effectivity of the Family Code.
The petitioner is presumed to have acted with malice or evil intent when he married the
private complainant. As a general rule, mistake of fact or good faith of the accused is a
valid defense in a prosecution for a felony by dolo; such defense negates malice or
criminal intent. However, ignorance of the law is not an excuse because everyone is
presumed to know the law.
COMPLAINT FOR BIGAMY FILED BY THE SUBSISTING SPOUSE:

G.R. No. 196049. June 26, 2013.*

MINORU FUJIKI, petitioner, vs. MARIA PAZ GALELA MARINAY, SHINICHI
MAEKARA, LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY, and THE
ADMINISTRATOR AND CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL
STATISTICS OFFICE, respondents.

Facts:
Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a Japanese national who married respondent
Maria Paz Galela Marinay (Marinay) in the Philippines on 23 January 2004. The marriage
did not sit well with petitioner’s parents. Thus, Fujiki could not bring his wife to Japan
where he resides. Eventually, they lost contact with each other.
In 2008, Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi Maekara (Maekara). Without the
first marriage being dissolved, Marinay and Maekara were married on 15 May 2008 in
Quezon City, Philippines. Maekara brought Marinay to Japan. However, Marinay
allegedly suffered physical abuse from Maekara. She left Maekara and started to contact
Fujiki.
Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they were able to reestablish their
relationship. In 2010, Fujiki helped Marinay obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan
which declared the marriage between Marinay and Maekara void on the ground of
bigamy. On 14 January 2011, Fujiki filed a petition in the RTC entitled: “Judicial
Recognition of Foreign Judgment (or Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage).”
RTC dismissed the petition for "Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment ·(or
Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage)" based on improper venue and the lack of
personality of petitioner, Minoru Fujiki, to file the petition.
Fujiki filed a motion for reconsideration which the RTC denied upon consideration
that Fujiki as a "third person” in the proceeding because he "is not the husband in the
decree of divorce issued by the Japanese Family Court, which he now seeks to be
judicially recognized.
The OSG agreed with the petitioner that the RTC’s decision be set aside.

Issue:
Whether a husband or wife of a prior marriage can file a petition to recognize a
foreign judgment nullifying the subsequent marriage between his or her spouse and a
foreign citizen on the ground of bigamy.

Ruling:
Affirmative.
The prior spouse has a personal and material interest in maintaining the integrity
of the marriage he contracted and the property relations arising from it. Fujiki has the
personality to file a petition to recognize the Japanese Family Court judgment nullifying
the marriage between Marinay and Maekara on the ground of bigamy because the
judgment concerns his civil status as married to Marinay.
Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not preclude a spouse of a subsisting
marriage to question the validity of a subsequent marriage on the ground of bigamy. On
the contrary, when Section 2(a) states that "[a] petition for declaration of absolute nullity
of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife"75—it refers to the
husband or the wife of the subsisting marriage. Under Article 35(4) of the Family Code,
bigamous marriages are void from the beginning. Thus, the parties in a bigamous
marriage are neither the husband nor the wife under the law. The husband or the wife of
the prior subsisting marriage is the one who has the personality to file a petition for
declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage under Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-
SC.

Article 35(4) of the Family Code, which declares bigamous marriages void from the
beginning, is the civil aspect of Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code,76 which penalizes
bigamy. Bigamy is a public crime. Thus, anyone can initiate prosecution for bigamy
because any citizen has an interest in the prosecution and prevention of crimes.77 If
anyone can file a criminal action which leads to the declaration of nullity of a bigamous
marriage,78 there is more reason to confer personality to sue on the husband or the wife
of a subsisting marriage. The prior spouse does not only share in the public interest of
prosecuting and preventing crimes, he is also personally interested in the purely civil
aspect of protecting his marriage.

When the right of the spouse to protect his marriage is violated, the spouse is clearly an
injured party and is therefore interested in the judgment of the suit. 79 Juliano-Llave ruled
that the prior spouse "is clearly the aggrieved party as the bigamous marriage not only
threatens the financial and the property ownership aspect of the prior marriage but most
of all, it causes an emotional burden to the prior spouse."80 Being a real party in interest,
the prior spouse is entitled to sue in order to declare a bigamous marriage void. For this
purpose, he can petition a court to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the bigamous
marriage and judicially declare as a fact that such judgment is effective in the Philippines.
Once established, there should be no more impediment to cancel the entry of the
bigamous marriage in the civil registry.
 G.R. No. 200233. July 15, 2015.*

LEONILA G. SANTIAGO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

respondent.

Facts:
4 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:
W/N marriage between Leonila and Nicanor is valid
Held:
 Negative. (Bigamous)
In the crime of bigamy, both the first and second spouses may be the offended
parties depending on the circumstances, as when the second spouse married the
accused without being aware of his previous marriage. Only if the second spouse had
knowledge of the previous undissolved marriage of the accused could she be included in
the information as a co-accused
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 4y prision correccional.

G.R. No. 159218 March 30, 2004

SALVADOR S. ABUNADO and ZENAIDA BIÑAS ABUNADO, Petitioners,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Facts:
On September 18, 1967, Salvador married Narcisa Arceño at the Manila City Hall
before Rev. Pedro Tiangco.[2] 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
Narcisa found Salvador in Quezon City cohabiting with Fe Corazon Plato. She also
discovered that on January 10, 1989, Salvador contracted a second marriage with a
certain Zenaida Biñas before Judge Lilian Dinulos Panontongan in San Mateo, Rizal...
annulment case was filed by Salvador against Narcisa.
A case for bigamy was filed by Narcisa against Salvador and Zenaida.
Salvador admitted that he first married Zenaida on December 24, 1955 before a
municipal trial court judge in Concepcion, Iloilo and has four children with her prior to their
separation in 1966. It appeared however that there was no evidence of their 1955
marriage so he and
Zenaida remarried on January 10, 1989, upon the request of their son for the
purpose of complying with the requirements for his commission in the military.
 The trial court convicted petitioner Salvador Abunado of bigamy. the Court of
Appeals affirmed with modification the decision of the trial court

Issues:
Whether petitioner has been sufficiently informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, namely, that he contracted a subsequent marriage with another
woman while his first marriage was subsisting.

Ruling:
The outcome of the civil case for annulment of petitioner's marriage to Narcisa had
no bearing upon the determination of petitioner's innocence or guilt in the criminal case
for bigamy, because all that is required for the charge of bigamy to prosper is that the first
marriage... be subsisting at the time the second marriage is contracted.
Thus, 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, both the first and the second marriage were subsisting before the first marriage
was annulled.

G.R. No. 207406. January 13, 2016.*

NORBERTO A. VITANGCOL, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

respondent.

Facts:

On December 4, 1994, Norberto married Alice G. Eduardo (Alice). Born into their union
were three (3) children. After some time, Alice eventually discovered that Norberto was
previously married to a certain Gina M. Gaerlan (Gina) on July 17, 1987, as evidenced by
a marriage contract registered with the National Statistics Office. Alice subsequently filed
a criminal Complaint for bigamy against Norberto.

Norberto argues that the first element of bigamy is absent in this case. He presents as
evidence a Certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar of Imus, Cavite, which states
that the Office has no record of the marriage license allegedly issued in his favor and his
first wife, Gina. He argues that with no proof of existence of an essential requisite of
marriage—the marriage license—the prosecution fails to establish the legality of his first
marriage. In addition, Norberto claims that the legal dissolution of the first marriage is not
an element of the crime of bigamy.
Issue:
Whether the Certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar that it has no record of the
marriage license issued to petitioner Norberto A. Vitangcol and his first wife Gina proves
the nullity of petitioner’s first marriage and exculpates him from the bigamy charge.

Ruling:
No. Petition for Certiorari is DENIED.

The Certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar that it has no record of the marriage
license is suspect. Assuming that it is true, it does not categorically prove that there was
no marriage license. Furthermore, marriages are not dissolved through mere certifications
by the civil registrar. For more than seven (7) years before his second marriage, petitioner
did nothing to have his alleged spurious first marriage declared a nullity. Even when this
case was pending, he did not present any decision from any trial court nullifying his first
marriage.

G.R. No. 159031 June 23, 2014

NOEL A. LASANAS, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Facts:

On February 16, 1968, Judge Salazar of the MTC 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. Tamayo at
the San Jose Church in Iloilo City. They submitted no marriage license or affidavit of
cohabitation for that purpose.7 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. 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. The complaint alleged that Socorro had
employed deceit, misrepresentations and fraud in securing his consent to their marriage.
Issue:
Whether or not Lasanas committed bigamy

Ruling:
Affirmative. This Court concedes that the marriage between accused-appellant Lasanas
and private complainant Patingo was void because of the absence of a marriage license
or of an affidavit of cohabitation. The ratificatory religious wedding ceremony could not
have validated the void marriage. Neither can the church wedding be treated as a
marriage in itself for to do so, all the essential and formal requisites of a valid marriage
should be present. One of these requisites is a valid marriage license except in those
instances when this requirement may be excused. There having been no marriage license
nor affidavit of cohabitation presented to the priest who presided over the religious rites,
the religious wedding cannot be treated as a valid marriage in itself.

But then, as the law and jurisprudence say, petitioner should have first secured a judicial
declaration of the nullity of his void marriage to private complainant Patingo before
marrying Josefa Eslaban. Actually, he did just that but after his marriage to Josefa
Eslaban. Consequently, he violated the law on bigamy.

COMPLAINT FOR BIGAMY FILED BY PERSON OTHE THAN THE PARTY

TO THE MARRIAGE:

G.R. No. 188775. August 24, 2011.*

CENON R. TEVES, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and
DANILO R. BONGALON, respondents.

Facts:

On 26 November 1992, a marriage was solemnized between Cenon Teves (Cenon) and
Thelma Jaime-Teves (Thelma). After the marriage, Thelma left to work abroad and would
only come home to the Philippines for vacations. In 2002, Thelma was informed that her
husband had contracted marriage with a certain Edita Calderon. Thelma then went to the
National Statistics Office and secured a copy of the Certificate of Marriage indicating that
her husband (Cenon) and Edita contracted marriage on 10 December 2001 in Bulacan.
In 2006, the uncle of Thelma, filed a complaint accusing petitioner Cenon of bigamy.
Petitioner was charged with bigamy under Article 349 of the RPC on June 2006. However,
during the pendency of the criminal case for bigamy, the RTC of Caloocan City, rendered
a decision dated May 2006 (one month before the case for bigamy was decided)
declaring the marriage of petitioner and Thelma null and void on the ground that Thelma
is physically incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations pursuant to
Article 36, Family Code. Said decision became final by a Certification of Finality issued
on 27 June 2006. Petitioner Cenon appealed before the CA contending that the court a
quo erred in not ruling that his criminal liability had already been extinguished. Petitioner
claims that since his previous marriage was declared null and void, “there is in effect no
marriage at all, and thus, there is no bigamy to speak of.”

Petitioner further contends that the ruling of the Court in Mercado v. Tan is inapplicable
in his case because in the Mercado case the prosecution for bigamy was initiated before
the declaration of nullity of marriage was filed. Petitioner says that in his case, the first
marriage had already been legally dissolved at the time the bigamy case was filed in
court.

Issue:

Whether petitioner may be held guilty for the crime of Bigamy (Article 346, RPC) despite
the judicial declaration that his previous marriage with Thema is null and void.

Ruling:

YES. The court held that it does not matter whether the case for declaration of nullity was
filed before the case for bigamy was instituted, for as long as the offender contracted a
subsequent marriage while his previous marriage is subsisting thereby not being able to
secure a Declaration of Nullity of the First marriage AT THE TIME HE CONTRACTED
THE SECOND MARRIAGE.

G.R. No. 181089. October 22, 2012.*

MERLINDA CIPRIONA MONTAÑEZ, respondent, vs. LOURDES TAJOLOSA
CIPRIANO, complainant.

Facts:
On April 8, 1976, Lourdes Cipriano (Lourdes) married Socrates Flores (Socrates). On
January 24, 1983, during the subsistence of the said marriage, Lourdes married Silverio
V. Cipriano (Silverio). In 2001, Lourdes filed with the RTC of Muntinlupa a Petition for the
Annulment of her marriage with Socrates on the ground of the latter’s psychological
incapacity. The RTC rendered its decision declaring the marriage of Lourdes with
Socrates null and void. Said decision became final and executory on October 13, 2003.

On May 14, 2004, petitioner Merlinda Montañez, Silverio’s daughter from the first
marriage, filed a complaint for bigamy against Lourdes alleging that Lourdes failed to
reveal to Silverio that she was still married to Socrates.

Lourdes moved to quash the information alleging that her first marriage to Socrates had
already been declared void ab initio in 2003, thus, there was no more marriage to speak
of prior to her marriage to Silverio on January 24, 1983. She also averred that she had
contracted her second marriage before the effectivity of the Family Code; hence, the
existing law at that time did not require a judicial declaration of absolute nullity as a
condition precedent to contracting a subsequent marriage. Hence, the RTC granted the
motion to quash.
Issue:
Whether or not the RTC correct in quashing the information for bigamy?

Held: The elements of the crime of bigamy are: (a) the offender has been legally married;
(b) 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; (c) that
he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and (d) the second or subsequent
marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. The felony is consummated on the
celebration of the second marriage or subsequent marriage. It is essential in the
prosecution for bigamy that the alleged second marriage, having all the essential
requirements, would be valid were it not for the subsistence of the first marriage.

In this case, it appears that when respondent contracted a second marriage with Silverio
in 1983, her first marriage with Socrates celebrated in 1976 was still subsisting as the
same had not yet been annulled or declared void by a competent authority. Clearly, the
annulment of respondent's first marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity was
declared only in 2003.

In Mercado v. Tan, we ruled that the subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the
first marriage was immaterial, because prior to the declaration of nullity, the crime of
bigamy had already been consummated.

As far back as 1995, in Atienza v. Brillantes, Jr., the Court already made the declaration
that Article 40, which is a rule of procedure, should be applied retroactively because
Article 256 of the Family Code itself provides that said "Code shall have retroactive effect
insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights." The Court went on to
explain, thus: “The fact that procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants' rights
may not preclude their retroactive application to pending actions. The retroactive
application of procedural laws is not violative of any right of a person who may feel that
he is adversely affected. The reason is that as a general rule, no vested right may attach
to, nor arise from, procedural laws.” GRANTED.