Case #39

G.R. No. 23180           September 23, 1925

PEOPLE vs. CORNELIO TISBE and FRANCISCO PANDIÑO

FACTS:

The defendants in this case were tried jointly with Julio Montecer, Esteban Austria and Victoria Perez
for the crime of abduction, committed, according to the information, as follows:

That the above named accused, assisting one another and with lewd designs, ascend and enter the
dwelling of one Rafael Alcazar, and through force, violence or intimidation upon persons, robbed his
daughter named Alberta Alcazar, a girl 17 years old, taking her from her home and carrying her to a
forest, with grave alarm of her parents and other relatives, and once in the said forest, the herein
accused, conspiring together and helping one another and with abuse of superior strength and through
force, violence and intimidation, compelled the said Alberta Alcazar to have carnal knowledge with one
of the defendants, Cornelio Tisbe, as said Cornelio Tisbe did in fact and with the help of his four
accused throw to the ground and succeed to lie several times with the said youth Alberta Alcazar
against her will and without her consent.

After proper trial, the lower court rendered a separate judgment, acquiting the defendants Julio
Montecer, Esteban Austria and Victoria Perez on the ground that the evidence of the prosecution did
not show beyond doubt the guilt of the defendants Julio Montecer and Victoria Perez, and as to
Esteban Austria there was no proof that the later has taken part in the crime.

Subsequently, the same court rendered another judgment against the appellants, finding them guilty
of the crime of abduction.

ISSUE: Whether or not Cornelio Tisbe and Francisco Pandiño are guilty of the crime of abduction?

HELD:

No. The defense set up by the defendant Tisbe consists chiefly in that celebration on the marriage
between the offended party and the defendant Tisbe having been proven after the commission of the
abduction in question, all criminal responsibility must be held extinguished in accordance with Act No.
1773. In our opinion if there was any abduction in the instant case the appellant Tisbe must be given
the benefit of the provision of section 2 of Act No. 1773.

As to the appellant Francisco Pandiño, suffice it to cite the doctrine laid down by this court in the case
of United States vs. Poquis (14 Phil., 261). In that case the defendants were prosecuted for the crime
of abduction for having seized and taken away by force a young girl by the name of E against the will
and with unchaste designs. All were found guilty with the exception of R who was acquitted for having
subsequently contracted marriage with the victim of the abduction, that is, E. It was held that said
marriage, according to section 2 of Act No. 1773, was a bar to the prosecution of the other defendants
for the crime to the prosecution of the other defendants for the crime charged in the information.

The marriage shown by Exhibit 1 of the defense not having been declared void and illegal by the trial
court, application must be made here of section 2 of Act No. 1773, and for that reason the appellants
Cornelio Tisbe and Francisco Pandiño must be, as are hereby, acquitted with the costs de officio.
So ordered.
Case #40
[G.R. NO. 145226. February 06, 2004]
LUCIO MORIGO y CACHO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Appellant Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates at the house of Catalina Tortor at
Tagbilaran City, Province of Bohol, for a period of four (4) years (from 1974-1978). In 1990, Lucia
came back to the Philippines and proposed to petition appellant to join her in Canada. Both agreed to
get married, thus they were married on August 30, 1990 at the Iglesia de Filipina Nacional at
Catagdaan, Pilar, Bohol. On August 19, 1991, Lucia filed with the Ontario Court (General Division) a
petition for divorce against appellant which was granted by the court on January 17, 1992 and to take
effect on February 17, 1992. On October 4, 1992, appellant Lucio Morigo married Maria Jececha
Lumbago. On September 21, 1993, accused filed a complaint for judicial declaration of nullity of
marriage in the Regional Trial Court. The complaint seek among others, the declaration of nullity of
accuseds marriage with Lucia, on the ground that no marriage ceremony actually took place. On
October 19, 1993, appellant was charged with Bigamy in an Information5 filed by the City Prosecutor
of Tagbilaran [City], with the Regional Trial Court of Bohol.6 

On August 5, 1996, the RTC of Bohol finds accused Lucio Morigo y Cacho guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Bigamy. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not accused Lucio Morigo committed bigamy?

HELD:

No. In Marbella -Bobis v. Bobis, the Court laid down the elements of bigamy thus:

(1) the offender has been legally married;

(2) 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) he contracts a subsequent marriage; and
(4) the subsequent marriage would have been valid had it not been for the existence of the first.

The first element of bigamy as a crime requires that the accused must have been legally married. But
in this case, legally speaking, the petitioner was never married to Lucia Barrete. Thus, there is no first
marriage to speak of. Under the principle of retroactivity of a marriage being declared void ab initio,
the two were never married from the beginning. The contract of marriage is null; it bears no legal
effect. Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, for legal purposes, petitioner was not married to
Lucia at the time he contracted the marriage with Maria Jececha. The existence and the validity of the
first marriage being an essential element of the crime of bigamy, it is but logical that a conviction for
said offense cannot be sustained where there is no first marriage to speak of. The petitioner, must,
perforce be acquitted of the instant charge.

In the instant case, no marriage ceremony at all was performed by a duly authorized solemnizing
officer. Petitioner and Lucia Barrete merely signed a marriage contract on their own. The mere private
act of signing a marriage contract bears no semblance to a valid marriage and thus, needs no judicial
declaration of nullity. Under the circumstances of the present case, we held that petitioner has not
committed bigamy.

WHEREFORE, petitioner Lucio Morigo is ACQUITTED from the charge of BIGAMY on the ground that
his guilt has not been proven with moral certainty.