LUCIO MORIGO y CACHO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 145226.

February 06, 2004

Facts: Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barete were married on August 30, 1990. Thereafter, Lucia went to Canada for work. She was then able to obtain a divorce decree which took on February 17, 1992. On October 4, 1992, Lucio married Maria Jececha Lumbago. On September 21, 1993, accused filed a complaint for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground that no marriage ceremony actually took place. On October 19, 1993, appellant was charged with Bigamy in an Information5 filed by the City Prosecutor of Tagbilaran [City], with the Regional Trial Court of Bohol. He was convicted of Bigamy on August 5, 1996 and he seasonably appealed. Meanwhile, on October 23, 1997, while the appeal was pending before the CA, the trial court rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 6020 declaring the marriage between Lucio and Lucia void ab initio since no marriage ceremony actually took place. Issue: Whether or not petitioner committed bigamy Ruling: Not guilty. In Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis, we elements of bigamy thus:
20

the marriage is void ab initio, in accordance with Articles 3 and 4 of the Family Code. As the dissenting opinion in CA-G.R. CR No. 20700, correctly puts it, This simply means that there was no marriage to begin with; and that such declaration of nullity retroacts to the date of the first marriage. In other words, for all intents and purposes, reckoned from the date of the declaration of the first marriage as void ab initio to the date of the celebration of the first marriage, the accused was, under the eyes of the law, never married.24 The records show that no appeal was taken from the decision of the trial court in Civil Case No. 6020, hence, the decision had long become final and executory. The first element of bigamy as a crime requires that the accused must have been legally married. But in this case, legally speaking, the petitioner was never married to Lucia Barrete. Thus, there is no first marriage to speak of. Under the principle of retroactivity of a marriage being declared void ab initio, the two were never married from the beginning. The contract of marriage is null; it bears no legal effect. Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, for legal purposes, petitioner was not married to Lucia at the time he contracted the marriage with Maria Jececha. The existence and the validity of the first marriage being an essential element of the crime of bigamy, it is but logical that a conviction for said offense cannot be sustained where there is no first marriage to speak of. The petitioner, must, perforce be acquitted of the instant charge. A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is necessary before a subsequent one can be legally contracted. However, in the instant case, no marriage ceremony at all was performed by a duly authorized solemnizing officer. Petitioner and Lucia Barrete merely signed a marriage contract on their own. The mere private act of signing a marriage contract bears no semblance to a valid marriage and thus, needs no judicial declaration of nullity.

laid

down

the

(1) the offender has been legally married; (2) the first marriage has not been legally dissolved, or in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse has not been judicially declared presumptively dead; (3) he contracts a subsequent marriage; and (4) the subsequent marriage would have been valid had it not been for the existence of the first. This Court takes note of the ruling of the TC in the declaration of nullity case. The trial court found that there was no actual marriage ceremony performed between Lucio and Lucia by a solemnizing officer. Instead, what transpired was a mere signing of the marriage contract by the two, without the presence of a solemnizing officer. The trial court thus held that

*dab