1. Montanez v Cipriano (G.R No.

181089; October 22, 2012)

Facts:
In 1976, respondent married Socrates in Aklan. In 983, during the subsistence of the said marriage, respondent married
5 Silverio in Laguna.A Petition for the Annulment of her marriage with Socrates on the ground of the latter’s psychological
incapacity as defined under Article 36 of the Family Code, the RTC of Muntinlupa, rendered an Amended Decision5
declaring the marriage of respondent with Socrates null and void. Said decision became final and executory in 2003.
In 2004, petitioner Merlinda, Silverio’s daughter from the first marriage, filed a Complaint for Bigamy against
respondent, which alleged, among others, that respondent failed to reveal to Silverio that she was still married to
10 Socrates.

On July 24, 2007 and before her arraignment, respondent, through counsel, filed a Motion to Quash Information alleging
that her marriage with 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; that the basic element of the crime of bigamy, i.e., two
15 valid marriages, is therefore wanting. She also claimed that since the second marriage was held in 1983, the crime of
bigamy had already prescribed.
It was also alleged that since her two marriages were contracted prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, Article 40 of
the Family Code cannot be given retroactive effect because this will impair her right to remarry without need of securing
a judicial declaration of nullity of a completely void marriage.
20
Issue:
{W/N there is a need for judicial declaration of nullity for void marriage before the effecitivity of the FC?} Civ.
W/N the action for bigamy may prosper?

25 Held:
{Yes, In Jarillo v. People, where the accused, in her motion for reconsideration, argued that since her marriages were
entered into before the effectivity of the Family Code, then the applicable law is Section 29 of the Marriage Law (Act
3613), instead of Article 40 of the Family Code, which requires a final judgment declaring the previous marriage void
before a person may contract a subsequent marriage. We did not find the argument meritorious and said: As far back as
30 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." Thus, the Court explained, 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.} Civ.
35
Yes, 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. And by contracting a second marriage while
the first was still subsisting, the accused committed the acts punishable under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.

40 Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes bigamy as follow:
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.
The elements of the crime of bigamy are:
45 (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.
50
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.

55
 2. Capili v P (G.R No. 183805; July 3, 2013)
5
Facts:
In 2004, the petitioner was charged with the crime of bigamy. Petitioner thereafter filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings
alleging that: (1) there is a pending civil case for declaration of nullity of the second marriage before the RTC of Antipolo
City filed by Capili; (2) in the event that the marriage is declared null and void, it would exculpate him from the charge
10 of bigamy; and (3) the pendency of the civil case for the declaration of nullity of the second marriage serves as a
prejudicial question in the instant criminal case.
The RTC of Antipolo City rendered a decision declaring the voidness or incipient invalidity of the second marriage
between petitioner and private respondent on the ground that a subsequent marriage contracted by the husband during
the lifetime of the legal wife is void from the beginning.
15 Thereafter, the petitioner accused filed his Manifestation and Motion (to Dismiss) praying for the dismissal of the
criminal case for bigamy filed against him on the ground that the second marriage between him and private respondent
had already been declared void by the RTC.

Issue:
20 W/N the subsequent declaration of nullity of the second marriage is a ground for dismissal of the criminal case for
bigamy?

Held:
Yes. Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes the crime of bigamy as follows:
25 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.

The elements of the crime of bigamy, therefore, are:

30 (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.
35
In the present case, it appears that all the elements of the crime of bigamy were present when the Information was filed.
Jurisprudence is replete (abundantly provided) with cases holding that the accused may still be charged with the crime of bigamy,
even if there is a subsequent declaration of the nullity of the second marriage, so long as the first marriage was still
subsisting when the second marriage was celebrated.
40 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. It is
clear then that the crime of bigamy was committed by petitioner from the time he contracted the second marriage with
private respondent. Thus, the finality of the judicial declaration of nullity of petitioner’s second marriage does not
45 impede the filing of a criminal charge for bigamy against him.

50

55

3. Santiago v P (G.R No. 200233; July 15 2015)

 Facts:
Four months after the solemnization of their marriage in 1997, Leonila and Nicanor faced an information for bigamy.
Evidence shows that Nicanor, who had been married to Estela since 1974, asked petitioner to marry him. Petitioner, who
was 43y/o widow, married Nicanor in 1997 despite the advice of her brother- in- law and parents-in-law that if she
5 wanted to remarry, she should choose someone who was “without responsibility.”
Petitioner asserted her affirmative defense that she could not be included as an accused in the crime of bigamy, because
she had been under the belief that Santos was still single when they got married. She also averred that for there to be a
conviction for bigamy, his second marriage to her should be proven valid by the prosecution; but in this case, she argued
that their marriage was void due to the lack of a marriage license. She elaborates that their marriage does not fall under
10 any of those marriages exempt from a marriage license, because they have not previously lived together exclusively as
husband and wife for at least five years. She alleges that it is extant in the records that she married Santos in 1997, or only
four years since she met him in 1993. Without completing the five-year requirement, she posits that their marriage
without a license is void.

15 Issue:
W/N the petitioner should be acquitted of bigamy?

Held:
No, the records do not show that they submitted an affidavit of cohabitation as required by Article 34 of the Family
20 Code, it appears that the two of them lied before the solemnizing officer and misrepresented that they had actually
cohabited for at least five years before they married each other. Unfortunately, subsequent to this lie was the issuance of
the Certificate of Marriage, in which the solemnizing officer stated under oath that no marriage license was necessary,
because the marriage was solemnized under Article 34 of the Family Code. We chastise this deceptive scheme that hides
what is basically a bigamous and illicit marriage in an effort to escape criminal prosecution. Our penal laws on marriage,
25 such as bigamy, punish an individual's deliberate disregard of the permanent and sacrosanct character of this special
bond between spouses. Thus, in the case at bar, we cannot countenance petitioner's illegal acts of feigning a marriage
and, in the same breath, adjudge her innocent of the crime. For us, to do so would only make a mockery of the sanctity of
marriage. The cause of action of petitioner, meaning her affirmative defense in this criminal case of bigamy, is that her
marriage with Santos was void for having been secured without a marriage license. But as elucidated earlier, they
30 themselves perpetrated a false Certificate of Marriage by misrepresenting that they were exempted from the license
requirement based on their fabricated claim that they had already cohabited as husband and wife for at least five years
prior their marriage. In violation of our law against illegal marriages,44 petitioner married Santos while knowing full
well that they had not yet complied with the five-year cohabitation requirement under Article 34 of the Family Code.
Consequently, it will be the height of absurdity for this Court to allow petitioner to use her illegal act to escape criminal
35 conviction.

40

45

50

55
4. Disini, Jr. V SOJ (G.R No. 128959; S