Santiago Vs.
Republic | Article 34
Facts:
The prosecution adduced evidence that Santos, who had been married to Estela Galang,
asked petitioner to marry hum. Petitioner, who was a 43-year-old widow the, married Santos.
Four months after the solemnization of their marriage, Leonila G. Santiago and Nicanor F. Santos
faced an Information for bigamy. Petitioner pleaded “not guilty”, while her putative husband
escaped the criminal suit.
Petitioner asserted that she could not be included as an accused in the crime of bigamy,
because she had been under the belief that Santos was still single when they got married. She
also averred that for there to be a conviction for bigamy, his second marriage to her should be
proven valid by the prosecution; but in this case, she argued that their marriage was void due to
the lack of a marriage license.
Eleven years after the inception of this criminal case, the first wife, Estela Galang, testified
for the prosecution. She alleged that she had met petitioner on which occasions the former
introduced herself as the legal wife of Santos. Petitioner denied this allegation and averred that
she met Galang only or after she had already married Santos.
The RTC appreciated the undisputed fact that petitioner married Santos during the
subsistence of his marriage to Galang. Petitioner moved for reconsideration which was denied.
On appeal, the CA gave more weight to the prosecution witnesses’ narration.
Issue:
Is the second marriage of Santiago valid, for there to be a conviction for bigamy?
Ruling:
Yes. It is clear that the marriage between petitioner and Santos took place without a
marriage license. The absence of this requirement is purportedly explained in their Certificate of
Marriage, which reveals that their union was celebrated under Article 34 of the Family Code,
which provides an exemption from the requirement of a marriage license if the parties have
actually lived together as husband and wife for at least five years prior to the celebration of their
marriage.
Santiago and Santos, however, reflected the exact opposite of this fact. Although the
records do not show that they submitted an affidavit of cohabitation as required by Article 34 of
the Family Code, it appears that the two of them lied before the solemnizing officer and
misinterpreted that they had actually cohabitated for at least five years before they married each
other.
The Certificate of Marriage, signed by Santos and Santiago, contained the
misinterpretation perpetrated by them that they were eligible to contract marriage without a
license. Petitioner now seeks to be acquitted of bigamy based on her illegal actions of (1)
marrying Santos without a marriage license despite knowing that they had not satisfied the
cohabitation requirement under the law; and (2) falsely making claims in no less than her
marriage contract.
In violation to our law against illegal marriages, petitioner married Santos while knowing
full that they had not yet complied with the five-year cohabitation requirement under Article 34
of the Family Code. It will be the height of absurdity for this Court to allow petitioner to use her
illegal act to escape criminal conviction.
No less than the present Constitution provides that “marriage, as an inviolable social
institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.” It must be
safeguarded from the whims and caprices of the contracting parties. In keeping therefore with
this fundamental policy, this Court affirms the conviction of petitioner for bigamy.
