Case Name Santiago v People

GR No. | Date G.R. No. 200233| July 15, 2015

Topic Bigamous and polygamous marriages
Doctrine In the case at bar, the court contended that they cannot countenance the petitioner’s illegal
acts of feigning a marriage and, in the same breath, adjudge her innocent of the crime. To do
so would only make a mockery of the sanctity of marriage. Furthermore, it is a basic concept
of justice that no court will “lend its aid to… one who has consciously and voluntarily become
a party to an illegal act upon which the cause of action is founded.”
Parties involved Petitioner: Leonila G. Santiago
Respondent: People of the Philippines
Ponente Sereno, C.J.
General Summary On July 29, 1997, the petitioner, Leonila Santiago, married Nicanor Santos despite her
knowledge of the latter’s subsisting marriage with Estela Galang. Santos and Santiago were
charged with the offense of bigamy. Santos avoided prosecution in the criminal case, but
Santiago was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and given the maximum punishment by
the lower court. SC modified the penalty based on jurisprudence that the second spouse is
liable only as an accomplice in the crime of bigamy if indicted. Further, the court argues that
the petitioner cannot use the argument that her marriage was void ab initio for not having a
marriage license and not satisfying Article 34 of the Family Code for the exception -- This is
because a flaw in the marriage was a deliberate act by the contracting parties.

Facts
• Since June 2, 1974, Nicanor Santos and Estela Galang were married
• On July 29, 1977, Nicanor Santos and the petitioner, Leonila Santiago were married despite her knowledge of
Nicanor’s subsisting marriage
• Four months after their marriage, Santos and Santiago faced Information for bigamy.
• Petitioner pleaded “not guilty,” while her putative husband escaped the criminal suit
• Petitioner’s argument:
o Petitioner argued that she could not be included as accused in the crime of bigamy because she had
been in the belief that Santos was still single when they got married
o She also argued that for there to be a case of bigamy, her marriage with Santos should be proven by the
prosecution to be valid; in this case, she argued that her marriage with Santos was void due to the lack
of a marriage license
• Eleven years after the inception of this criminal case, Estela Galang, the first wife of Santos, alleged that she had
met the petitioner as early as March and April 1997, on which she introduced herself to the petitioner as the
legal wife of Santos
• Petitioner denied Galang’s allegation and averred that she only met Galang in August and September 1997, after
she married Santos
• Lower courts ruling:
o RTC finds the accused Leonila Santiago GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy
o RTC declares that as indicated in the Certificate of Marriage, her marriage was celebrated without a need
for a marriage license in accordance with Article 34 of the Family Code, which is an admission that she
cohabited with Santos long before the celebration of their marriage
o RTC refused to reverse the conviction in motion for reconsideration
o Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction of bigamy
Issue/s
• W/n the petitioner is co-accused in the instant case of bigamy

Ruling
• Yes. The petitioner, Leonila Santiago, is criminally liable for the crime of bigamy
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner Leonila G. Santiago is DENIED. The Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 33566 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. As modified, petitioner
Leonila G. Santiago is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy as an accomplice. She is
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor as minimum to four years of prision
correccional as maximum plus accessory penalties provided by law.

Reasoning
• The crime of bigamy does not necessarily entail the joint liability of two persons who marry each other while the
previous marriage of one of them is valid and subsisting. As explained in Nepomuceno: 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 correctly ascertained the petitioner’s knowledge of Santos’s marriage to Galang as shown by the
totality of the following circumstances: (1) when Santos was courting and visiting the 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; and (3) Galang, who was the more credible witness compared with a 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 Santos.
• Given that petitioner knew of the first marriage, this Court concurs with the ruling that she was validly charged
with bigamy. However, we disagree with the lower court’s imposition of the principal penalty on her. Her
punishment as a principal for the crime is wrong. Archilla holds that the second spouse if indicted in the crime of
bigamy, is liable only as an accomplice.

Separate Opinions (if any)

• N/a