G.R. No.

145226 February 06, 2004 In 1990, Lucia came back to the Philippines and ranging from Seven (7) Months of Prision
proposed to petition appellant to join her in Canada. Correccional as minimum to Six (6) Years and One
LUCIO MORIGO y CACHO, petitioner, Both agreed to get married, thus they were married (1) Day of Prision Mayor as maximum.
vs. on August 30, 1990 at the Iglesia de Filipina Nacional
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. at Catagdaan, Pilar, Bohol. SO ORDERED.7

SECOND DIVISION On September 8, 1990, Lucia reported back to her In convicting herein petitioner, the trial court
work in Canada leaving appellant Lucio behind. discounted petitioner’s claim that his first marriage to
DECISION Lucia was null and void ab initio. Following Domingo
On August 19, 1991, Lucia filed with the Ontario Court v. Court of Appeals,8 the trial court ruled that want of
(General Division) a petition for divorce against a valid marriage ceremony is not a defense in a
QUISUMBING, J.: appellant which was granted by the court on January charge of bigamy. The parties to a marriage should
17, 1992 and to take effect on February 17, 1992. not be allowed to assume that their marriage is void
This petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse even if such be the fact but must first secure a judicial
the decision1 dated October 21, 1999 of the Court of On October 4, 1992, appellant Lucio Morigo married declaration of the nullity of their marriage before they
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 20700, which affirmed Maria Jececha Lumbago4 at the Virgen sa Barangay can be allowed to marry again.
the judgment2 dated August 5, 1996 of the Regional Parish, Tagbilaran City, Bohol.
Trial Court (RTC) of Bohol, Branch 4, in Criminal Anent the Canadian divorce obtained by Lucia, the
Case No. 8688. The trial court found herein petitioner On September 21, 1993, accused filed a complaint for trial court cited Ramirez v. Gmur,9 which held that the
Lucio Morigo y Cacho guilty beyond reasonable doubt judicial declaration of nullity of marriage in the court of a country in which neither of the spouses is
of bigamy and sentenced him to a prison term of Regional Trial Court of Bohol, docketed as Civil Case domiciled and in which one or both spouses may
seven (7) months of prision correccional as minimum No. 6020. The complaint seek (sic) among others, the resort merely for the purpose of obtaining a divorce,
to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as declaration of nullity of accused’s marriage with Lucia, has no jurisdiction to determine the matrimonial status
maximum. Also assailed in this petition is the on the ground that no marriage ceremony actually of the parties. As such, a divorce granted by said
resolution3 of the appellate court, dated September took place. court is not entitled to recognition anywhere.
25, 2000, denying Morigo’s motion for Debunking Lucio’s defense of good faith in
reconsideration. On October 19, 1993, appellant was charged with contracting the second marriage, the trial court
Bigamy in an Information5 filed by the City Prosecutor stressed that following People v. Bitdu,10 everyone is
The facts of this case, as found by the court a quo, of Tagbilaran [City], with the Regional Trial Court of presumed to know the law, and the fact that one does
are as follows: Bohol.6 not know that his act constitutes a violation of the law
does not exempt him from the consequences thereof.
Appellant Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were The petitioner moved for suspension of the
boardmates at the house of Catalina Tortor at arraignment on the ground that the civil case for Seasonably, petitioner filed an appeal with the Court
Tagbilaran City, Province of Bohol, for a period of four judicial nullification of his marriage with Lucia posed a of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 20700.
(4) years (from 1974-1978). prejudicial question in the bigamy case. His motion
was granted, but subsequently denied upon motion Meanwhile, on October 23, 1997, or while CA-G.R.
After school year 1977-78, Lucio Morigo and Lucia for reconsideration by the prosecution. When CR No. 20700 was pending before the appellate
Barrete lost contact with each other. arraigned in the bigamy case, which was docketed as court, the trial court rendered a decision in Civil Case
Criminal Case No. 8688, herein petitioner pleaded not No. 6020 declaring the marriage between Lucio and
In 1984, Lucio Morigo was surprised to receive a card guilty to the charge. Trial thereafter ensued. Lucia void ab initio since no marriage ceremony
from Lucia Barrete from Singapore. The former actually took place. No appeal was taken from this
replied and after an exchange of letters, they became On August 5, 1996, the RTC of Bohol handed down decision, which then became final and executory.
sweethearts. its judgment in Criminal Case No. 8688, as follows:
On October 21, 1999, the appellate court decided CA-
In 1986, Lucia returned to the Philippines but left WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the G.R. CR No. 20700 as follows:
again for Canada to work there. While in Canada, Court finds accused Lucio Morigo y Cacho guilty
they maintained constant communication. beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Bigamy and WHEREFORE, finding no error in the appealed
sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment decision, the same is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

Page 1 of 3
 For the respondent, the Office of the Solicitor General
SO ORDERED.11 WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS (OSG) submits that good faith in the instant case is a
ERRED IN FAILING TO APPLY THE RULE THAT IN convenient but flimsy excuse. The Solicitor General
In affirming the assailed judgment of conviction, the CRIMES PENALIZED UNDER THE REVISED relies upon our ruling in Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis,18
appellate court stressed that the subsequent PENAL CODE, CRIMINAL INTENT IS AN which held that bigamy can be successfully
declaration of nullity of Lucio’s marriage to Lucia in INDISPENSABLE REQUISITE. COROLLARILY, prosecuted provided all the elements concur,
Civil Case No. 6020 could not acquit Lucio. The WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS stressing that under Article 4019 of the Family Code,
reason is that what is sought to be punished by Article ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE [THE] a judicial declaration of nullity is a must before a party
34912 of the Revised Penal Code is the act of PETITIONER’S LACK OF CRIMINAL INTENT WHEN may re-marry. Whether or not the petitioner was
contracting a second marriage before the first HE CONTRACTED THE SECOND MARRIAGE. aware of said Article 40 is of no account as everyone
marriage had been dissolved. Hence, the CA held, is presumed to know the law. The OSG counters that
the fact that the first marriage was void from the B. petitioner’s contention that he was in good faith
beginning is not a valid defense in a bigamy case. because he relied on the divorce decree of the
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS Ontario court is negated by his act of filing Civil Case
The Court of Appeals also pointed out that the divorce ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RULING IN No. 6020, seeking a judicial declaration of nullity of
decree obtained by Lucia from the Canadian court PEOPLE VS. BITDU (58 PHIL. 817) IS APPLICABLE his marriage to Lucia.
could not be accorded validity in the Philippines, TO THE CASE AT BAR.
pursuant to Article 1513 of the Civil Code and given Before we delve into petitioner’s defense of good faith
the fact that it is contrary to public policy in this C. and lack of criminal intent, we must first determine
jurisdiction. Under Article 1714 of the Civil Code, a whether all the elements of bigamy are present in this
declaration of public policy cannot be rendered WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS case. In Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis,20 we laid down the
ineffectual by a judgment promulgated in a foreign ERRED IN FAILING TO APPLY THE RULE THAT elements of bigamy thus:
jurisdiction. EACH AND EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE FAVORING
THE INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED MUST BE (1) the offender has been legally married;
Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the appellate TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.17
court’s decision, contending that the doctrine in (2) the first marriage has not been legally dissolved,
Mendiola v. People,15 allows mistake upon a difficult To our mind, the primordial issue should be whether or in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent
question of law (such as the effect of a foreign divorce or not petitioner committed bigamy and if so, whether spouse has not been judicially declared presumptively
decree) to be a basis for good faith. his defense of good faith is valid. dead;

On September 25, 2000, the appellate court denied The petitioner submits that he should not be faulted (3) he contracts a subsequent marriage; and
the motion for lack of merit.16 However, the denial for relying in good faith upon the divorce decree of the
was by a split vote. The ponente of the appellate Ontario court. He highlights the fact that he contracted (4) the subsequent marriage would have been valid
court’s original decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 20700, the second marriage openly and publicly, which a had it not been for the existence of the first.
Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria, joined in the opinion person intent upon bigamy would not be doing. The
prepared by Justice Bernardo P. Abesamis. The petitioner further argues that his lack of criminal intent Applying the foregoing test to the instant case, we
dissent observed that as the first marriage was validly is material to a conviction or acquittal in the instant note that during the pendency of CA-G.R. CR No.
declared void ab initio, then there was no first case. The crime of bigamy, just like other felonies 20700, the RTC of Bohol Branch 1, handed down the
marriage to speak of. Since the date of the nullity punished under the Revised Penal Code, is mala in following decision in Civil Case No. 6020, to wit:
retroacts to the date of the first marriage and since se, and hence, good faith and lack of criminal intent
herein petitioner was, in the eyes of the law, never are allowed as a complete defense. He stresses that WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is
married, he cannot be convicted beyond reasonable there is a difference between the intent to commit the hereby rendered decreeing the annulment of the
doubt of bigamy. crime and the intent to perpetrate the act. Hence, it marriage entered into by petitioner Lucio Morigo and
does not necessarily follow that his intention to Lucia Barrete on August 23, 1990 in Pilar, Bohol and
The present petition raises the following issues for our contract a second marriage is tantamount to an intent further directing the Local Civil Registrar of Pilar,
resolution: to commit bigamy. Bohol to effect the cancellation of the marriage
contract.
A.

Page 2 of 3
SO ORDERED.21 A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage
is necessary before a subsequent one can be legally SO ORDERED.
The trial court found that there was no actual contracted. One who enters into a subsequent
marriage ceremony performed between Lucio and marriage without first obtaining such judicial Puno, (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and
Lucia by a solemnizing officer. Instead, what declaration is guilty of bigamy. This principle applies Tinga, JJ., concur.
transpired was a mere signing of the marriage even if the earlier union is characterized by statutes
contract by the two, without the presence of a as "void."26
solemnizing officer. The trial court thus held that the
marriage is void ab initio, in accordance with Articles It bears stressing though that in Mercado, the first
322 and 423 of the Family Code. As the dissenting marriage was actually solemnized not just once, but
opinion in CA-G.R. CR No. 20700, correctly puts it, twice: first before a judge where a marriage certificate
"This simply means that there was no marriage to was duly issued and then again six months later
begin with; and that such declaration of nullity before a priest in religious rites. Ostensibly, at least,
retroacts to the date of the first marriage. In other the first marriage appeared to have transpired,
words, for all intents and purposes, reckoned from the although later declared void ab initio.
date of the declaration of the first marriage as void ab
initio to the date of the celebration of the first In the instant case, however, no marriage ceremony
marriage, the accused was, under the eyes of the law, at all was performed by a duly authorized solemnizing
never married."24 The records show that no appeal officer. Petitioner and Lucia Barrete merely signed a
was taken from the decision of the trial court in Civil marriage contract on their own. The mere private act
Case No. 6020, hence, the decision had long become of signing a marriage contract bears no semblance to
final and executory. a valid marriage and thus, needs no judicial
declaration of nullity. Such act alone, without more,
The first element of bigamy as a crime requires that cannot be deemed to constitute an ostensibly valid
the accused must have been legally married. But in marriage for which petitioner might be held liable for
this case, legally speaking, the petitioner was never bigamy unless he first secures a judicial declaration of
married to Lucia Barrete. Thus, there is no first nullity before he contracts a subsequent marriage.
marriage to speak of. Under the principle of
retroactivity of a marriage being declared void ab The law abhors an injustice and the Court is
initio, the two were never married "from the mandated to liberally construe a penal statute in favor
beginning." The contract of marriage is null; it bears of an accused and weigh every circumstance in favor
no legal effect. Taking this argument to its logical of the presumption of innocence to ensure that justice
conclusion, for legal purposes, petitioner was not is done. Under the circumstances of the present case,
married to Lucia at the time he contracted the we held that petitioner has not committed bigamy.
marriage with Maria Jececha. The existence and the Further, we also find that we need not tarry on the
validity of the first marriage being an essential issue of the validity of his defense of good faith or lack
element of the crime of bigamy, it is but logical that a of criminal intent, which is now moot and academic.
conviction for said offense cannot be sustained where
there is no first marriage to speak of. The petitioner, WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The
must, perforce be acquitted of the instant charge. assailed decision, dated October 21, 1999 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 20700, as well
The present case is analogous to, but must be as the resolution of the appellate court dated
distinguished from Mercado v. Tan.25 In the latter September 25, 2000, denying herein petitioner’s
case, the judicial declaration of nullity of the first motion for reconsideration, is REVERSED and SET
marriage was likewise obtained after the second ASIDE. The petitioner Lucio Morigo y Cacho is
marriage was already celebrated. We held therein ACQUITTED from the charge of BIGAMY on the
that: ground that his guilt has not been proven with moral
certainty.

Page 3 of 3