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

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

Criminal Law; Bigamy; Elements.Article 349 of the Revised

Penal Code states: 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 this crime are as follows: 1. That the offender has been
legally married; 2. That 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.
Same; Same; Declaration of Nullity of Marriage; Where the
absolute nullity of a previous marriage is sought to be invoked for
purposes of contracting a second marriage, the sole basis acceptable
in law for said projected marriage to be free from legal infirmity is a
final judgment declaring the previous marriage void.It is evident
therefore that petitioner has committed the crime charged. His
contention that he cannot be charged with bigamy in view of the
declaration of nullity of his first marriage is bereft of merit. The
Family Code has settled once and for all the conflicting
jurisprudence on the matter. A declaration of the absolute nullity of
a mar-

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

308

308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Teves vs. People

riage is now explicitly required either as a cause of action or a
ground for defense. Where the absolute nullity of a previous
marriage is sought to be invoked for purposes of contracting a
second marriage, the sole basis acceptable in law for said projected
marriage to be free from legal infirmity is a final judgment
declaring the previous marriage void.
Same; Same; Same; The finality of the judicial declaration of
the nullity of previous marriage of the accused cannot be made to
retroact to the date of the bigamous marriage.Settled is the rule
that criminal culpability attaches to the offender upon the
commission of the offense, and from that instant, liability appends
to him until extinguished as provided by law, and that the time of
filing of the criminal complaint (or Information, in proper cases) is
material only for determining prescription. The crime of bigamy
was committed by petitioner on 10 December 2001 when he
contracted a second marriage with Edita. The finality on 27 June
2006 of the judicial declaration of the nullity of his previous
marriage to Thelma cannot be made to retroact to the date of the
bigamous marriage.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
R.R. Mendez & Associates Law Offices for petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondents.

PEREZ,J.:
This Petition for Review seeks the reversal of the 21
January 2009 decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. CR No. 31125 affirming in toto the decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Malolos City in
Criminal Case No. 2070-M-2006. The RTC decision2 found
petitioner Cenon R.

_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato. Jr., and Associate
Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and
Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, concurring; CA Rollo, pp. 75-86.
2 Records, pp. 156-162.

309

VOL. 656, AUGUST 24, 2011 309

Teves vs. People
Teves guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Bigamy penalized under Article 349 of the Revised Penal
Code.

The Facts

On 26 November 1992, a marriage was solemnized

between Cenon Teves (Cenon) and Thelma Jaime-Teves
(Thelma) at the Metropolitan Trial Court of Muntinlupa
City, Metro Manila.3
After the marriage, Thelma left to work abroad. She
would only come home to the Philippines for vacations.
While on a vacation in 2002, she was informed that her
husband had contracted marriage with a certain Edita
Calderon (Edita). To verify the information, she went to the
National Statistics Office and secured a copy of the
Certificate of Marriage4 indicating that her husband and
Edita contracted marriage on 10 December 2001 at the
Divine Trust Consulting Services, Malhacan, Meycauayan,
Bulacan.
On 13 February 2006, Danilo Bongalon, uncle of
Thelma, filed before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
of Malolos City, Bulacan a complaint5 accusing petitioner of
committing bigamy.
Petitioner was charged on 8 June 2006 with bigamy
defined and penalized under Article 349 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, in an Information6 which reads:

That on or about the 10th day of December, 2001 up to the

present, in the municipality of Meycauayan, province of Bulacan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
said Cenon R. Teves being previously united in lawful marriage on
November 26, 1992 with Thelma B. Jaime and without the said
marriage having legally dissolved, did then and there willfully,
unlaw-

_______________
3 Id., at p. 13.
4 Id., at p. 11.
5 Id., at p. 6.
6 Id., at p. 2.

310

310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Teves vs. People
fully and feloniously contract a second marriage with one Edita T.
Calderon, who knowing of the criminal design of accused Cenon R.
Teves to marry her and in concurrence thereof, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously cooperate in the execution of
the offense by marrying Cenon R. Teves, knowing fully well of the
existence of the marriage of the latter with Thelma B. Jaime.

During the pendency of the criminal case for bigamy, the

Regional Trial Court, Branch 130, Caloocan City, rendered
a decision7 dated 4 May 2006 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 of the
Family Code. Said decision became final by virtue of a
Certification of Finality8 issued on 27 June 2006.
On 15 August 2007, the trial court rendered its assailed
decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

rendered finding the accused Cenon R. Teves, also known as Cenon
Avelino R. Teves, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Bigamy penalized under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, as
charged in the Information dated June 8, 2006. Pursuant to the
provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of four (4) years,
two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum,
to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.9

Refusing to accept such verdict, petitioner appealed the

decision before the Court of Appeals contending that the
court a quo erred in not ruling that his criminal action or
liability had already been extinguished. He also claimed
that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of Bigamy
despite the defective Information filed by the prosecution.10

_______________
7 Id., at pp. 82-90.
8 Id., at pp. 91-92.
9 Id., at p. 162.
10 CA Rollo, p. 25. Appellants Brief.

311

VOL. 656, AUGUST 24, 2011 311

Teves vs. People
 On 21 January 2009, the CA promulgated its decision,
the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the Decision

dated August 15, 2007 in Criminal Case No. 2070-M-2006 is
AFFIRMED in TOTO.11

On 11 February 2009, petitioner filed a motion for

reconsideration of the decision.12 This however, was denied
by the CA in a resolution issued on 2 July 2009.13
Hence, this petition.
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.14 He
differentiates a previous valid or voidable marriage from a
marriage null and void ab initio, and posits that the former
requires a judicial dissolution before one can validly
contract a second marriage but a void marriage, for the
same purpose, need not be judicially determined.
Petitioner further contends that the ruling of the Court
in Mercado v. Tan15 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. In
petitioners case, the first marriage had already been
legally dissolved at the time the bigamy case was filed in
court.
We find no reason to disturb the findings of the CA.
There is nothing in the law that would sustain petitioners
contention.
Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code states:

_______________
11 Id., at p. 85.
12 Id., at pp. 89-99.
13 Id., at pp. 114-115.
14 Rollo, p. 24
15 G.R. No. 137110, 1 August 2000, 337 SCRA 122.

312

312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Teves vs. People

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 this crime are as follows:
1.That the offender has been legally married;
2.That 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.16

The instant case has all the elements of the crime of

bigamy. Thus, the CA was correct in affirming the
conviction of petitioner.
Petitioner was legally married to Thelma on 26
November 1992 at the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Muntinlupa City. He contracted a second or subsequent
marriage with Edita on 10 December 2001 in Meycauayan,
Bulacan. At the time of his second marriage with Edita, his
marriage with Thelma was legally subsisting. It is noted
that the finality of the decision declaring the nullity of his
first marriage with Thelma was only on 27 June 2006 or
about five (5) years after his second marriage to Edita.
Finally, the second or subsequent marriage of petitioner
with Edita has all the essential requisites for validity.
Petitioner has in fact not disputed the validity of such
subsequent marriage.17
It is evident therefore that petitioner has committed the
crime charged. His contention that he cannot be charged
with bigamy in view of the declaration of nullity of his first
mar-

_______________
16 Tenebro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150758, 18 February 2004
423 SCRA, 272, 279 citing Reyes, L.B., the Revised Penal Code, Book II,
14th Ed., 1998, p. 907.
17 CA Rollo, p. 62.

313

VOL. 656, AUGUST 24, 2011 313

Teves vs. People

riage is bereft of merit. 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. Where the absolute nullity of a previous
marriage is sought to be invoked for purposes of
contracting a second marriage, the sole basis acceptable in
law for said projected marriage to be free from legal
infirmity is a final judgment declaring the previous
marriage void.18
The Family Law Revision Committee and the Civil Code
Revision Committee which drafted what is now the Family
Code of the Philippines took the position that parties to a
marriage should not be allowed to assume that their
marriage is void even if such be the fact but must first
secure a judicial declaration of the nullity of their marriage
before they can be allowed to marry again.19
In fact, the requirement for a declaration of absolute
nullity of a marriage is also for the protection of the spouse
who, believing that his or her marriage is illegal and void,
marries again. With the judicial declaration of the nullity
of his or her marriage, the person who marries again
cannot be charged with bigamy.20
In numerous cases,21 this Court has consistently held
that a judicial declaration of nullity is required before a
valid subse-

_______________
18 Domingo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104818, 17 September 1993,
226 SCRA 572, 579.
19 Id., at pp. 579-580.
20 Id., at p. 582, citing J.A.V. Sempio-Diy, Handbook of the Family
Code of the Philippines, p. 46 (1988).
21 A.M. No. 2008-20-SC, 15 March 2010, 615 SCRA 186, 198-199, Re:
Complaint of Mrs. Corazon S. Salvador against Sps. Noel and Amelia
Serafico citing Morigo v. People, G.R. No. 145226, 6 February 2004, 422
SCRA 376; Domingo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 194818, 17 September
1993, 226 SCRA 572; Terre v. Terre, A.C. No. 2349, 3 July 1992, 211
SCRA 7; Wiegel v. Sempio-Diy, No. L-53703, 19 August 1986, 143 SCRA
499; Vda. De Consuegra v. Gov-

314

314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Teves vs. People
quent marriage can be contracted; or else, what transpires
is a bigamous marriage, reprehensible and immoral.
If petitioners contention would be allowed, 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. We note that in petitioners case the
complaint was filed before the first marriage was declared
a nullity. It was only the filing of the Information that was
overtaken by the declaration of nullity of his first marriage.
Following petitioners argument, even assuming that a
complaint has been instituted, such as in this case, the
offender can still escape liability provided that a decision
nullifying his earlier marriage precedes the filing of the
Information in court. Such cannot be allowed. To do so
would make the crime of bigamy dependent upon the
ability or inability of the Office of the Public Prosecutor to
immediately act on complaints and eventually file
Informations in court. Plainly, petitioners strained reading
of the law is against its simple letter.
Settled is the rule that criminal culpability attaches to
the offender upon the commission of the offense, and from
that instant, liability appends to him until extinguished as
provided by law, and that the time of filing of the criminal
complaint (or Information, in proper cases) is material only
for determining prescription.22 The crime of bigamy was
committed by petitioner on 10 December 2001 when he
contracted a second marriage with Edita. The finality on 27
June 2006 of the judicial declaration of the nullity of his
previous marriage to Thelma cannot be made to retroact to
the date of the bigamous marriage.

_______________
ernment Service Insurance System, No. L-28093, 30 January 1971, 37
SCRA 315; Gomez v. Lipana, No. L-23214, 30 June 1970, 33 SCRA 614.
22 De Jesus v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101630, 24 August 1992, 212
SCRA 823, 830.

315

VOL. 656, AUGUST 24, 2011 315

Teves vs. People

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review is

 DENIED and the assailed Decision dated 21 January 2009
of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED in toto.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Peralta** and Mendoza,***

JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment affirmed.

Note.The pendency of a civil case for declaration of

nullity of marriage is not a prejudicial question in a
prosecution for concubinage or bigamy. (Marbella-Bobis vs.
Bobis, 336 SCRA 747 [2000])

o0o

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.