TodayisMonday,March06,2017

Custom Search

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.182438July2,2014

RENERONULO,Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Respondent.

DECISION

BRION,J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 filed by petitioner Fr. Rene Ronulo challenging the April 3,
2008decision2oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.CR.No.31028whichaffirmedthedecisionoftheRegional
TrialCourt,(RTC)Branch18,Batac,IlocosNorte.

TheFactualAntecedents

Thepresentedevidenceshowedthat3JoeyUmadacandClaireBingayenwerescheduledtomarryeachotheron
March29,2003attheSta.RosaCatholicParishChurchofSanNicolas,IlocosNorte.However,onthedayofthe
wedding,thesupposedofficiatingpriest,Fr.MarioRagaza,refusedtosolemnizethemarriageuponlearningthatthe
couple failed to secure a marriage license. As a recourse, Joey, who was then dressed in barong tagalong,and
Claire, clad in a wedding gown, together with their parents, sponsors and guests, proceeded to the Independent
Church of Filipino Christians, also known as the Aglipayan Church. They requested the petitioner, an Aglipayan
priest,toperformaceremonytowhichthelatteragreeddespitehavingbeeninformedbythecouplethattheyhad
nomarriagecertificate.

The petitioner prepared his choir and scheduled a mass for the couple on the same date. He conducted the
ceremonyinthepresenceofthegroom,thebride,theirparents,theprincipalandsecondarysponsorsandtherest
oftheirinvitedguests.4

An information for violation of Article 352 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, was filed against the
petitionerbeforetheMunicipalTrialCourt(MTC)ofBatac,IlocosNorteforallegedlyperforminganillegalmarriage
ceremony.5

Thepetitionerenteredthepleaof"notguilty"tothecrimechargedonarraignment.

Theprosecutionswitnesses,JosephandMaryAnneYere,testifiedontheincidentsoftheceremony.Josephwas
theveilsponsorwhileMaryAnnewasthecordsponsorinthewedding.MaryAnnetestifiedthatshesawthebride
walkdowntheaisle.Shealsosawthecoupleexchangetheirweddingrings,kisseachother,andsignadocument.6
Sheheardthepetitionerinstructingtheprincipalsponsorstosignthemarriagecontract.Thereafter,theywenttothe
reception,hadlunchandtookpictures.Shesawthepetitionerthere.Shealsoidentifiedtheweddinginvitationgiven
toherbyJoey.7

FloridaUmadac,themotherofJoey,testifiedthatsheheardthecoupledeclareduringtheceremonythattheytake
each other as husband and wife.8 Days after the wedding, she went to the municipal local civil registrar of San
Nicolas,IlocosNortewithAtty.MarianoR.NaluptaJr.whereshewasgivenacertificatethatnomarriagelicense
wasissuedtothecouple.9

The petitioner, while admitting that he conducted a ceremony, denied that his act of blessing the couple was
tantamounttoasolemnizationofthemarriageascontemplatedbylaw.10

TheMTCJudgment

The MTC found the petitioner guilty of violation of Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, and imposed on him a
P200.00finepursuanttoSection44ofActNo.3613.Itheldthatthepetitionersactofgivingablessingconstitutesa
marriage ceremony as he made an official church recognition of the cohabitation of the couple as husband and
wife.11Itfurtherruledthatinperformingamarriageceremonywithoutthecouplesmarriagelicense,thepetitioner
violatedArticle352oftheRPCwhichimposesthepenaltyprovidedunderActNo.3613ortheMarriageLaw.The
MTCappliedSection44oftheMarriageLawwhichpertinentlystatesthataviolationofanyofitsprovisionsthatis
notspecificallypenalizedoroftheregulationstobepromulgated,shallbepunishedbyafineofnotmorethantwo
hundredpesosorbyimprisonmentofnotmorethanonemonth,orboth,inthediscretionofthecourt.

TheRPCisalawsubsequenttotheMarriageLaw,andprovidesthepenaltyforviolationofthelatterlaw.Applying
theselaws,theMTCimposedthepenaltyofafineintheamountofP200.00.12

TheRTCRuling

TheRTCaffirmedthefindingsoftheMTCandaddedthatthecircumstancessurroundingtheactofthepetitionerin
"blessing"thecoupleunmistakablyshowthatamarriageceremonyhadtranspired.Itfurtherruledthatthepositive
declarationsoftheprosecutionwitnessesdeservemorecredencethanthepetitionersnegativestatements.13The
RTC,however,ruledthatthebasisofthefineshouldbeSection39,insteadofSection44,oftheMarriageLaw.

TheCADecision

Onappeal,theCAaffirmedtheRTCsruling.TheCAobservedthatalthoughthereisnoprescribedformorreligious
rite for the solemnization of marriage, the law provides minimum standards in determining whether a marriage
ceremony has been conducted, viz.: (1) the contracting parties must appear personally before the solemnizing
officerand(2)theyshoulddeclarethattheytakeeachotherashusbandandwifeinthepresenceofatleasttwo
witnessesoflegalage.14 According to the CA, the prosecution duly proved these requirements. It added that the
presenceofamarriagecertificateisnotarequirementinamarriageceremony.15

The CA additionally ruled that the petitioners criminal liability under Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, is not
dependentonwhetherJoeyorClairewerechargedorfoundguiltyunderArticle350ofthesameCode.16

TheCAagreedwiththeMTCthatthelegalbasisfortheimpositionofthefineisSection44oftheMarriageLaw
sinceitcoversviolationofregulationstobepromulgatedbytheproperauthoritiessuchastheRPC.

ThePetition

The petitioner argues that the CA erred on the following grounds: First, Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, is
vague and does not define what constitutes "an illegal marriage ceremony." Assuming that a marriage ceremony
principally constitutes those enunciated in Article 55 of the Civil Code and Article 6 of the Family Code, these
provisions require the verbal declaration that the couple take each other as husband and wife, and a marriage
certificatecontainingthedeclarationinwritingwhichisdulysignedbythecontractingpartiesandattestedtobythe
solemnizing officer.17 The petitioner likewise maintains that the prosecution failed to prove that the contracting
parties personally declared that they take each other as husband and wife.18 Second, under the principle of
separation of church and State, the State cannot interfere in ecclesiastical affairs such as the administration of
matrimony.Therefore,theStatecannotconvertthe"blessing"intoa"marriageceremony."19

Third,thepetitionerhadnocriminalintentasheconductedthe"blessing"ingoodfaithforpurposesofgivingmoral
guidancetothecouple.20

Fourth,thenonfilingofacriminalcaseagainstthecoupleinviolatingArticle350oftheRPC,asamended,should
precludethefilingofthepresentcaseagainsthim.21

Finally, Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, does not provide for a penalty. The present case is not covered by
Section44oftheMarriageLawasthepetitionerwasnotfoundviolatingitsprovisionsnoraregulationpromulgated
thereafter.22

THECOURTSRULING:

Wefindthepetitionunmeritorious.

TheelementsofthecrimepunishableunderArticle352oftheRPC,asamended,wereprovenbytheprosecution

Article352oftheRPC,asamended,penalizesanauthorizedsolemnizingofficerwhoshallperformorauthorizeany
illegalmarriageceremony.Theelementsofthiscrimeareasfollows:(1)authorityofthesolemnizingofficerand(2)
hisperformanceofanillegalmarriageceremony.Inthepresentcase,thepetitioneradmittedthathehasauthorityto
solemnize a marriage. Hence, the only issue to be resolved is whether the alleged "blessing" by the petitioner is
tantamounttotheperformanceofan"illegalmarriageceremony"whichispunishableunderArticle352oftheRPC,
asamended.
WhileArticle352oftheRPC,asamended,doesnotspecificallydefinea"marriageceremony"andwhatconstitutes
its"illegal"performance,Articles3(3)and6oftheFamilyCodeareclearonthesematters.Theseprovisionswere
takenfromArticle5523oftheNewCivilCodewhich,inturn,wascopiedfromSection324oftheMarriageLawwith
nosubstantialamendments.Article625oftheFamilyCodeprovidesthat"[n]oprescribedformorreligiousriteforthe
solemnization of the marriage is required. It shall be necessary, however, for the contracting parties to appear
personally before the solemnizing officer and declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age
thattheytakeeachotherashusbandandwife."26Pertinently,Article3(3)27mirrorsArticle6oftheFamilyCodeand
particularlydefinesamarriageceremonyasthatwhichtakesplacewiththeappearanceofthecontractingparties
beforethesolemnizingofficerandtheirpersonaldeclarationthattheytakeeachotherashusbandandwifeinthe
presenceofnotlessthantwowitnessesoflegalage.

EvenpriortothedateoftheenactmentofArticle352oftheRPC,asamended,therulewasclearthatnoprescribed
formofreligiousriteforthesolemnizationofthemarriageisrequired.However,ascorrectlyfoundbytheCA,the
law sets the minimum requirements constituting a marriage ceremony: first, there should be the personal
appearanceofthecontractingpartiesbeforeasolemnizingofficerandsecond,heirdeclarationinthepresenceof
notlessthantwowitnessesthattheytakeeachotherashusbandandwife.

Astothefirstrequirement,thepetitioneradmittedthatthepartiesappearedbeforehimandthisfactwastestifiedto
bywitnesses.Onthesecondrequirement,wefindthat,contrarytothepetitionersallegation,theprosecutionhas
proven,throughthetestimonyofFlorida,thatthecontractingpartiespersonallydeclaredthattheytakeeachother
ashusbandandwife.

ThepetitionersallegationthatthecourtaskedinsinuatingandleadingquestionstoFloridafailstopersuadeus.A
judgemayexamineorcrossexamineawitness.Hemaypropoundclarificatoryquestionstotestthecredibilityofthe
witnessandtoextractthetruth.Hemayseektodrawoutrelevantandmaterialtestimonythoughthattestimonymay
tendtosupportorrebutthepositiontakenbyoneortheotherparty.Itcannotbetakenagainsthimiftheclarificatory
questionshepropoundshappentorevealcertaintruthsthattendtodestroythetheoryofoneparty.28

Atanyrate,ifthedefensefoundthelineofquestioningofthejudgeobjectionable,itsfailuretotimelyregisterthis
barsitfrombelatedlyinvokinganyirregularity.

In addition, the testimonies of Joseph and Mary Anne, and even the petitioners admission regarding the
circumstances of the ceremony, support Floridas testimony that there had indeed been the declaration by the
couple that they take each other as husband and wife. The testimony of Joey disowning their declaration as
husbandandwifecannotovercometheseclearandconvincingpiecesofevidence.Notably,thedefensefailedto
showthattheprosecutionwitnesses,JosephandMaryAnne,hadanyillmotivetotestifyagainstthepetitioner.

WealsodonotagreewiththepetitionerthattheprincipleofseparationofchurchandStateprecludestheStatefrom
qualifyingthechurch"blessing"intoamarriageceremony.Contrarytothepetitionersallegation,thisprinciplehas
beendulypreservedbyArticle6oftheFamilyCodewhenitprovidesthatnoprescribedformorreligiousriteforthe
solemnization of marriage is required. This pronouncement gives any religion or sect the freedom or latitude in
conducting its respective marital rites, subject only to the requirement that the core requirements of law be
observed.

WeemphasizeatthispointthatArticle1529oftheConstitutionrecognizesmarriageasaninviolablesocialinstitution
andthatourfamilylawisbasedonthepolicythatmarriageisnotamerecontract,butasocialinstitutioninwhich
theStateisvitallyinterested.TheStatehasparamountinterestintheenforcementofitsconstitutionalpoliciesand
thepreservationofthesanctityofmarriage.Tothisend,itiswithinitspowertoenactlawsandregulations,suchas
Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, which penalize the commission of acts resulting in the disintegration and
mockeryofmarriage.

From these perspectives, we find it clear that what the petitioner conducted was a marriage ceremony, as the
minimumrequirementssetbylawwerecompliedwith.Whilethepetitionermayviewthismerelyasa"blessing,"the
presence of the requirements of the law constitutive of a marriage ceremony qualified this "blessing" into a
"marriageceremony"ascontemplatedbyArticle3(3)oftheFamilyCodeandArticle352oftheRPC,asamended.

Wecomenowtotheissueofwhetherthesolemnizationbythepetitionerofthismarriageceremonywasillegal.

UnderArticle3(3)oftheFamilyCode,oneoftheessentialrequisitesofmarriageisthepresenceofavalidmarriage
certificate.Inthepresentcase,thepetitioneradmittedthatheknewthatthecouplehadnomarriagelicense,yethe
conductedthe"blessing"oftheirrelationship.

Undoubtedly, the petitioner conducted the marriage ceremony despite knowledge that the essential and formal
requirementsofmarriagesetbylawwerelacking.Themarriageceremony,therefore,wasillegal.Thepetitioners
knowledgeoftheabsenceoftheserequirementsnegateshisdefenseofgoodfaith.
We also do not agree with the petitioner that the lack of a marriage certificate negates his criminal liability in the
presentcase.Forpurposesofdeterminingifamarriageceremonyhasbeenconducted,amarriagecertificateisnot
includedintherequirementsprovidedbyArticle3(3)oftheFamilyCode,asdiscussedabove.

Neitherdoesthenonfilingofacriminalcomplaintagainstthecouplenegatecriminalliabilityofthepetitioner.Article
352oftheRPC,asamended,doesnotmakethisanelementofthecrime.Thepenaltyimposedisproper

OntheissueonthepenaltyforviolationofArticle352oftheRPC,asamended,thisprovisionclearlyprovidesthatit
shallbeimposedinaccordancewiththeprovisionoftheMarriageLaw.ThepenaltyprovisionsoftheMarriageLaw
areSections39and44whichprovideasfollows:Section39oftheMarriageLawprovidesthat:

Section39.IllegalSolemnizationofMarriageAnypriestorministersolemnizingmarriagewithoutbeingauthorized
by the Director of the Philippine National Library or who, upon solemnizing marriage, refuses to exhibit the
authorization in force when called upon to do so by the parties or parents, grandparents, guardians, or persons
having charge and any bishop or officer, priest, or minister of any church, religion or sect the regulations and
practices whereof require banns or publications previous to the solemnization of a marriage in accordance with
sectionten,whoauthorizedtheimmediatesolemnizationofamarriagethatissubsequentlydeclaredillegalorany
officer,priestorministersolemnizingmarriageinviolationofthisact,shallbepunishedbyimprisonmentfornotless
than one month nor more than two years, or by a fine of not less than two hundred pesos nor more than two
thousandpesos.[emphasisours]

Ontheotherhand,Section44oftheMarriageLawstatesthat:

Section 44. General Penal Clause Any violation of any provision of this Act not specifically penalized, or of the
regulationstobepromulgatedbytheproperauthorities,shallbepunishedbyafineofnotmorethantwohundred
pesosorbyimprisonmentfornotmorethanonemonth,orboth,inthediscretionofthecourt.[emphasisours]

From a reading of the provisions cited above, we find merit in the ruling of the CA and the MTC that the penalty
imposableinthepresentcaseisthatcoveredunderSection44,andnotSection39,oftheMarriageLaw.

The penalizedactsunderSection39ofActNo.3613donotincludethe presentcase. Ascorrectlyfound bythe

1wphi1

MTC, the petitioner was not found violating the provisions of the Marriage Law but Article 352 of the RPC, as
amended.ItisonlytheimpositionofthepenaltyfortheviolationofthisprovisionwhichisreferredtotheMarriage
Law.Onthispoint,Article352fallssquarelyundertheprovisionofSection44ofActNo.3613whichprovidesforthe
penaltyforanyviolationoftheregulationstobepromulgatedbytheproperauthoritiesArticle352oftheRPC,as
amended,whichwasenactedaftertheMarriageLaw,isoneofsuchregulations.

Therefore,theCAdidnoterrinimposingthepenaltyoffineofP200.00pursuanttoSection44oftheMarriageLaw.

WHEREFORE,weDENYthepetitionandaffirmthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsdatedApril3,2008inCAG.R.
CR.No.31028.

SOORDERED.

ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassigned
tothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,SecondDivision
 CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,andtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1
Rollo,pp.326.
2
PennedbyAssociateJusticeJoseL.Sabio,Jr.,andconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesJoseC.Reyes,Jr.
andRamonM.Bato,Jr.id.at2855.
3
FromthetestimoniesofJosephYere,id.at8990MaryAnneYere,id.at182183thepetitioner,id.at118
123,129and133136JoeyUmadac,id.at145153andDominadorUmadac,id.at166167.
4
Id.at30.
5
Id.at29.
6
Id.at35.
7
Id.at3637.
8
Id.at8586(TSNdatedAugust5,2004ofFloridaUmadac,p.14).
9
Id.at31.
10
Id.at4950.
11
Id.at6061.
12
Id.at6263.
13
Id.at68.
14
Id.at46.
15
Id.at51.
16
Ibid.
17
Id.at1214.
18
Id.at15.
19
Id.at1516.
20
Id.at18.
21
Ibid.
22
Id.at19.
23
Art.55.Noparticularformfortheceremonyofmarriageisrequired,butthepartieswithlegalcapacityto
contractmarriagemustdeclare,inthepresenceofthepersonsolemnizingthemarriageandoftwowitnesses
of legal age, that they take each other as husband and wife. This declaration shall be set forth in an
instrument in triplicate, signed by signature or mark by the contracting parties and said two witnesses and
attestedbythepersonsolemnizingthemarriage.
24
MutualConsent.Noparticularformfortheceremonyofmarriageisrequired,butthepartieswithlegal
capacity to contract marriage must declare, in the presence of the person solemnizing the marriage and of
twowitnessesoflegalage,thattheytakeeachotherashusbandandwife.Thisdeclarationshallbesetforth
 inaninstrumentintriplicate,signedbysignatureormarkbythecontractingpartiesandsaidtwowitnesses
andattestedbythepersonsolemnizingthemarriage.
25
Art. 6. No prescribed form or religious rite for the solemnization of the marriage is required. It shall be
necessary, however, for the contracting parties to appear personally before the solemnizing officer and
declareinthepresenceofnotlessthantwowitnessesoflegalagethattheytakeeachotherashusbandand
wife.Thisdeclarationshallbecontainedinthemarriagecertificatewhichshallbesignedbythecontracting
partiesandtheirwitnessesandattestedbythesolemnizingofficer.
26
ThisprovisionwastakenfromArticle55oftheNewCivilCodewhichwas,inturn,areproductionofSection
3oftheMarriageLaw.
27

Art.3.Theformalrequisitesofmarriageare:

(1)Authorityofthesolemnizingofficer

(2)AvalidmarriagelicenseexceptinthecasesprovidedforinChapter2ofthisTitleand

(3)Amarriageceremonywhichtakesplacewiththeappearanceofthecontractingpartiesbeforethe
solemnizingofficerandtheirpersonaldeclarationthattheytakeeachotherashusbandandwifeinthe
presenceofnotlessthantwowitnessesoflegalage.
28
Peoplev.ZhengBaiHui,393Phil.68,115(2000).
29
Section 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall
strengthenitssolidarityandactivelypromoteitstotaldevelopment.

Section2.Marriage,aninviolablesocialinstitution,isthefoundationofthefamilyandshallbe
protectedbytheState.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation