G.R. No.

145226 February 06, 2004 On October 4, 1992, appellant Lucio Morigo married Maria Jececha
Lumbago4 at the Virgen sa Barangay Parish, Tagbilaran City, Bohol.
LUCIO MORIGO y CACHO, petitioner,
vs. On September 21, 1993, accused filed a complaint for judicial declaration
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. of nullity of marriage in the Regional Trial Court of Bohol, docketed as
Civil Case No. 6020. The complaint seek (sic) among others, the
DECISION declaration of nullity of accused’s marriage with Lucia, on the ground that
no marriage ceremony actually took place.
QUISUMBING, J.: On October 19, 1993, appellant was charged with Bigamy in an
Information5 filed by the City Prosecutor of Tagbilaran [City], with the
This petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse the decision1 dated October Regional Trial Court of Bohol.6
21, 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 20700, which affirmed the
judgment2 dated August 5, 1996 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bohol, The petitioner moved for suspension of the arraignment on the ground that the
Branch 4, in Criminal Case No. 8688. The trial court found herein petitioner civil case for judicial nullification of his marriage with Lucia posed a prejudicial
Lucio Morigo y Cacho guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy and sentenced question in the bigamy case. His motion was granted, but subsequently denied
him to a prison term of seven (7) months of prision correccional as minimum to upon motion for reconsideration by the prosecution. When arraigned in the
six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum. Also assailed in this bigamy case, which was docketed as Criminal Case No. 8688, herein petitioner
petition is the resolution3 of the appellate court, dated September 25, 2000, pleaded not guilty to the charge. Trial thereafter ensued.
denying Morigo’s motion for reconsideration. On August 5, 1996, the RTC of Bohol handed down its judgment in Criminal
The facts of this case, as found by the court a quo, are as follows: Case No. 8688, as follows:
Appellant Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates at the house WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Court finds accused
of Catalina Tortor at Tagbilaran City, Province of Bohol, for a period of Lucio Morigo y Cacho guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
four (4) years (from 1974-1978). Bigamy and sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging
from Seven (7) Months of Prision Correccional as minimum to Six (6)
After school year 1977-78, Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete lost contact Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor as maximum.
with each other.
SO ORDERED.7
In 1984, Lucio Morigo was surprised to receive a card from Lucia Barrete
from Singapore. The former replied and after an exchange of letters, they In convicting herein petitioner, the trial court discounted petitioner’s claim that his
became sweethearts. first marriage to Lucia was null and void ab initio. Following Domingo v. Court of
Appeals,8 the trial court ruled that want of a valid marriage ceremony is not a
In 1986, Lucia returned to the Philippines but left again for Canada to defense in a charge of bigamy. The parties to a marriage should not be allowed to
work there. While in Canada, they maintained constant communication. assume that their marriage is void even if such be the fact but must first secure a
In 1990, Lucia came back to the Philippines and proposed to petition judicial declaration of the nullity of their marriage before they can be allowed to
appellant to join her in Canada. Both agreed to get married, thus they marry again.
were married on August 30, 1990 at the Iglesia de Filipina Nacional at Anent the Canadian divorce obtained by Lucia, the trial court cited Ramirez v.
Catagdaan, Pilar, Bohol. Gmur,9 which held that the court of a country in which neither of the spouses is
On September 8, 1990, Lucia reported back to her work in Canada domiciled and in which one or both spouses may resort merely for the purpose of
leaving appellant Lucio behind. obtaining a divorce, has no jurisdiction to determine the matrimonial status of the
parties. As such, a divorce granted by said court is not entitled to recognition
On August 19, 1991, Lucia filed with the Ontario Court (General anywhere. Debunking Lucio’s defense of good faith in contracting the second
Division) a petition for divorce against appellant which was granted by marriage, the trial court stressed that following People v. Bitdu,10 everyone is
the court on January 17, 1992 and to take effect on February 17, 1992. presumed to know the law, and the fact that one does not know that his act
constitutes a violation of the law does not exempt him from the consequences A.
thereof.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
Seasonably, petitioner filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA- FAILING TO APPLY THE RULE THAT IN CRIMES PENALIZED
G.R. CR No. 20700. UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE, CRIMINAL INTENT IS AN
INDISPENSABLE REQUISITE. COROLLARILY, WHETHER OR
Meanwhile, on October 23, 1997, or while CA-G.R. CR No. 20700 was pending NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO
before the appellate court, the trial court rendered a decision in Civil Case No. APPRECIATE [THE] PETITIONER’S LACK OF CRIMINAL INTENT
6020 declaring the marriage between Lucio and Lucia void ab initio since no WHEN HE CONTRACTED THE SECOND MARRIAGE.
marriage ceremony actually took place. No appeal was taken from this decision,
which then became final and executory. B.
On October 21, 1999, the appellate court decided CA-G.R. CR No. 20700 as WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
follows: HOLDING THAT THE RULING IN PEOPLE VS. BITDU (58 PHIL.
817) IS APPLICABLE TO THE CASE AT BAR.
WHEREFORE, finding no error in the appealed decision, the same is
hereby AFFIRMED in toto. C.
SO ORDERED.11 WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
FAILING TO APPLY THE RULE THAT EACH AND EVERY
In affirming the assailed judgment of conviction, the appellate court stressed that CIRCUMSTANCE FAVORING THE INNOCENCE OF THE
the subsequent declaration of nullity of Lucio’s marriage to Lucia in Civil Case ACCUSED MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.17
No. 6020 could not acquit Lucio. The reason is that what is sought to be punished
by Article 34912 of the Revised Penal Code is the act of contracting a second To our mind, the primordial issue should be whether or not petitioner committed
marriage before the first marriage had been dissolved. Hence, the CA held, the bigamy and if so, whether his defense of good faith is valid.
fact that the first marriage was void from the beginning is not a valid defense in a
bigamy case. The petitioner submits that he should not be faulted for relying in good faith upon
the divorce decree of the Ontario court. He highlights the fact that he contracted
The Court of Appeals also pointed out that the divorce decree obtained by Lucia the second marriage openly and publicly, which a person intent upon bigamy
from the Canadian court could not be accorded validity in the Philippines, would not be doing. The petitioner further argues that his lack of criminal intent is
pursuant to Article 1513 of the Civil Code and given the fact that it is contrary to material to a conviction or acquittal in the instant case. The crime of bigamy, just
public policy in this jurisdiction. Under Article 1714 of the Civil Code, a like other felonies punished under the Revised Penal Code, is mala in se, and
declaration of public policy cannot be rendered ineffectual by a judgment hence, good faith and lack of criminal intent are allowed as a complete defense.
promulgated in a foreign jurisdiction. He stresses that there is a difference between the intent to commit the crime and
the intent to perpetrate the act. Hence, it does not necessarily follow that his
Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the appellate court’s decision, contending intention to contract a second marriage is tantamount to an intent to commit
that the doctrine in Mendiola v. People,15 allows mistake upon a difficult question bigamy.
of law (such as the effect of a foreign divorce decree) to be a basis for good faith.
For the respondent, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) submits that good
On September 25, 2000, the appellate court denied the motion for lack of merit.16 faith in the instant case is a convenient but flimsy excuse. The Solicitor General
However, the denial was by a split vote. The ponente of the appellate court’s relies upon our ruling in Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis,18 which held that bigamy can be
original decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 20700, Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria, joined successfully prosecuted provided all the elements concur, stressing that under
in the opinion prepared by Justice Bernardo P. Abesamis. The dissent observed Article 4019 of the Family Code, a judicial declaration of nullity is a must before a
that as the first marriage was validly declared void ab initio, then there was no party may re-marry. Whether or not the petitioner was aware of said Article 40 is
first marriage to speak of. Since the date of the nullity retroacts to the date of the
of no account as everyone is presumed to know the law. The OSG counters that
first marriage and since herein petitioner was, in the eyes of the law, never petitioner’s contention that he was in good faith because he relied on the divorce
married, he cannot be convicted beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy. decree of the Ontario court is negated by his act of filing Civil Case No. 6020,
The present petition raises the following issues for our resolution: seeking a judicial declaration of nullity of his marriage to Lucia.
Before we delve into petitioner’s defense of good faith and lack of criminal intent, Maria Jececha. The existence and the validity of the first marriage being an
we must first determine whether all the elements of bigamy are present in this essential element of the crime of bigamy, it is but logical that a conviction for said
case. In Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis,20 we laid down the elements of bigamy thus: offense cannot be sustained where there is no first marriage to speak of. The
petitioner, must, perforce be acquitted of the instant charge.
(1) the offender has been legally married;
The present case is analogous to, but must be distinguished from Mercado v.
(2) the first marriage has not been legally dissolved, or in case his or her Tan.25 In the latter case, the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage was
spouse is absent, the absent spouse has not been judicially declared likewise obtained after the second marriage was already celebrated. We held
presumptively dead; therein that:
(3) he contracts a subsequent marriage; and A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is necessary before
(4) the subsequent marriage would have been valid had it not been for the a subsequent one can be legally contracted. One who enters into a
existence of the first. subsequent marriage without first obtaining such judicial declaration is
guilty of bigamy. This principle applies even if the earlier union is
Applying the foregoing test to the instant case, we note that during the pendency characterized by statutes as "void."26
of CA-G.R. CR No. 20700, the RTC of Bohol Branch 1, handed down the
following decision in Civil Case No. 6020, to wit: It bears stressing though that in Mercado, the first marriage was actually
solemnized not just once, but twice: first before a judge where a marriage
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered certificate was duly issued and then again six months later before a priest in
decreeing the annulment of the marriage entered into by petitioner Lucio religious rites. Ostensibly, at least, the first marriage appeared to have transpired,
Morigo and Lucia Barrete on August 23, 1990 in Pilar, Bohol and further although later declared void ab initio.
directing the Local Civil Registrar of Pilar, Bohol to effect the
cancellation of the marriage contract. In the instant case, however, no marriage ceremony at all was performed by a duly
authorized solemnizing officer. Petitioner and Lucia Barrete merely signed a
SO ORDERED.21 marriage contract on their own. The mere private act of signing a marriage
The trial court found that there was no actual marriage ceremony performed contract bears no semblance to a valid marriage and thus, needs no judicial
between Lucio and Lucia by a solemnizing officer. Instead, what transpired was a declaration of nullity. Such act alone, without more, cannot be deemed to
mere signing of the marriage contract by the two, without the presence of a constitute an ostensibly valid marriage for which petitioner might be held liable
solemnizing officer. The trial court thus held that the marriage is void ab initio, in for bigamy unless he first secures a judicial declaration of nullity before he
accordance with Articles 322 and 423 of the Family Code. As the dissenting opinion contracts a subsequent marriage.
in CA-G.R. CR No. 20700, correctly puts it, "This simply means that there was no The law abhors an injustice and the Court is mandated to liberally construe a
marriage to begin with; and that such declaration of nullity retroacts to the date of penal statute in favor of an accused and weigh every circumstance in favor of the
the first marriage. In other words, for all intents and purposes, reckoned from the presumption of innocence to ensure that justice is done. Under the circumstances
date of the declaration of the first marriage as void ab initio to the date of the of the present case, we held that petitioner has not committed bigamy. Further, we
celebration of the first marriage, the accused was, under the eyes of the law, never also find that we need not tarry on the issue of the validity of his defense of good
married."24 The records show that no appeal was taken from the decision of the faith or lack of criminal intent, which is now moot and academic.
trial court in Civil Case No. 6020, hence, the decision had long become final and
executory. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision, dated
October 21, 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 20700, as well as
The first element of bigamy as a crime requires that the accused must have been the resolution of the appellate court dated September 25, 2000, denying herein
legally married. But in this case, legally speaking, the petitioner was never petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
married to Lucia Barrete. Thus, there is no first marriage to speak of. Under the petitioner Lucio Morigo y Cacho is ACQUITTED from the charge of BIGAMY
principle of retroactivity of a marriage being declared void ab initio, the two were on the ground that his guilt has not been proven with moral certainty.
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, SO ORDERED.
petitioner was not married to Lucia at the time he contracted the marriage with