Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Modified the sentence because the first marriage was void due to
lack of license.
Even if the first marriage is declared void, it would not be a
defense against bigamy. Neither is the declaration of the second
marriage as void.
THIRD DIVISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
- versus - CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA, and
PERALTA, JJ.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Promulgated:
Respondent.
September 29, 2009
x--------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court, praying that the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA),
dated July 21, 2003, and its Resolution[2]dated July 8, 2004, be reversed and
set aside.
On May 31, 2000, petitioner was charged with Bigamy before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 117 under the following
Information in Criminal Case No. 00-08-11:
INFORMATION
Contrary to law.
On May 24, 1974, Victoria Jarillo and Rafael Alocillo were married in a
civil wedding ceremony solemnized by Hon. Monico C. Tanyag, then
Municipal Mayor of Taguig, Rizal (Exhs. A, A-1, H, H-1, H-2, O, O-1, pp.
20-21, TSN dated November 17, 2000).
Thereafter, appellant Jarillo was charged with bigamy before the Regional
Trial Court of Pasay City x x x.
xxxx
For her defense, petitioner insisted that (1) her 1974 and 1975
marriages to Alocillo were null and void because Alocillo was allegedly still
married to a certain Loretta Tillman at the time of the celebration of their
marriage; (2) her marriages to both Alocillo and Uy were null and void for
lack of a valid marriage license; and (3) the action had prescribed, since Uy
knew about her marriage to Alocillo as far back as 1978.
On appeal to the CA, petitioners conviction was affirmed in toto. In its
Decision dated July 21, 2003, the CA held that petitioner committed bigamy
when she contracted marriage with Emmanuel Santos Uy because, at that
time, her marriage to Rafael Alocillo had not yet been declared null and void
by the court. This being so, the presumption is, her previous marriage to
Alocillo was still existing at the time of her marriage to Uy. The CA also
struck down, for lack of sufficient evidence, petitioners contentions that her
marriages were celebrated without a marriage license, and that Uy had
notice of her previous marriage as far back as 1978.
In the meantime, the RTC of Makati City, Branch 140, rendered a
Decision dated March 28, 2003, declaring petitioners 1974 and 1975
marriages to Alocillo null and void ab initio on the ground of Alocillos
psychological incapacity. Said decision became final and executory on July
9, 2003. In her motion for reconsideration, petitioner invoked said
declaration of nullity as a ground for the reversal of her
conviction. However, in its Resolution dated July 8, 2004, the CA,
citing Tenebro v. Court of Appeals,[4] denied reconsideration and ruled that
[t]he subsequent declaration of nullity of her first marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity, while it retroacts to the date of the celebration of
the marriage insofar as the vinculum between the spouses is concerned, the
said marriage is not without legal consequences, among which is incurring
criminal liability for bigamy.[5]
The first, second, third and fifth issues, being closely related, shall be
discussed jointly. It is true that right after the presentation of the prosecution
evidence, petitioner moved for suspension of the proceedings on the ground
of the pendency of the petition for declaration of nullity of petitioners
marriages to Alocillo, which, petitioner claimed involved a prejudicial
question. In her appeal, she also asserted that the petition for declaration of
nullity of her marriage to Uy, initiated by the latter, was a ground for
suspension of the proceedings. The RTC denied her motion for suspension,
while the CA struck down her arguments. In Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis,[6] the
Court categorically stated that:
xxxx
For the very same reasons elucidated in the above-quoted cases, petitioners
conviction of the crime of bigamy must be affirmed. The subsequent judicial
declaration of nullity of petitioners two marriages to Alocillo cannot be
considered a valid defense in the crime of bigamy. The moment petitioner
contracted a second marriage without the previous one having been
judicially declared null and void, the crime of bigamy was already
consummated because at the time of the celebration of the second marriage,
petitioners marriage to Alocillo, which had not yet been declared null and
void by a court of competent jurisdiction, was deemed valid and
subsisting. Neither would a judicial declaration of the nullity of petitioners
marriage to Uy make any difference.[10] As held in Tenebro, [s]ince a
marriage contracted during the subsistence of a valid marriage is
automatically void, the nullity of this second marriage is not per se an
argument for the avoidance of criminal liability for bigamy. x x x A plain
reading of [Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code], therefore, would
indicate that the provision penalizes the mere act of contracting a second or
subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage.[11]
x x x She did not call to the witness stand her mother the person who
allegedly actually told Uy about her previous marriage to Alocillo. It must
be obvious that without the confirmatory testimony of her mother, the
attribution of the latter of any act which she allegedly did is hearsay.[13]
Finally, petitioner avers that the RTC and the CA imposed an erroneous
penalty under the Revised Penal Code. Again, petitioner is mistaken.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Courts Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Third Division, Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Courts Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Bernardo P. Abesamis, with Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Jose
C. Mendoza, concurring; rollo, pp. 8-21.
[2]
Penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr., with Associate Justices Mariano C. del Castillo and Jose
C. Mendoza, concurring; rollo, pp. 22-23.
[3]
Rollo, pp. 9-10.
[4]
467 Phil. 723 (2004).
[5]
CA rollo, p. 404.
[6]
391 Phil. 648 (2000).
[7]
Id. at 655-657. (Emphasis supplied.)
[8]
G.R. No. 159218, March 30, 2004, 426 SCRA 562.
[9]
Id. at 567-568. (Emphasis supplied.)
[10]
Abunado v. People, supra note 8; Tenebro v. Court of Appeals, supra note 4, at 752.
[11]
Tenebro v. Court of Appeals, supra, at 742.
[12]
Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. v. Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 151890, June
20, 2006, 491 SCRA 411, 433.
[13]
Records, p. 383.
[14]
G.R. No. 109454, June 14, 1994, 233 SCRA 155.
[15]
Id. at 161.
[16]
Abunado v. People, supra note 8, at 568.
[17]
See Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City in Civil Case No. 00-1217, CA rollo, pp. 343-
347.