Ancajas lived together continuously and without whom he sired two children.

However, he denied
interruption until the latter part of 1991, when that he and Villareyes were validly married to
Tenebro informed Ancajas that he had been each other, claiming that no marriage ceremony
previously married to a certain Hilda Villareyes on took place to solemnize their union.7 He alleged
November 10, 1986. Tenebro showed Ancajas a that he signed a marriage contract merely to
photocopy of a marriage contract between him enable her to get the allotment from his office in
and Villareyes. Invoking this previous marriage, connection with his work as a seaman.8 He
petitioner thereafter left the conjugal dwelling further testified that he requested his brother to
which he shared with Ancajas, stating that he was verify from the Civil Register in Manila whether
EN BANC going to cohabit with Villareyes.1 there was any marriage at all between him and
Villareyes, but there was no record of said
On January 25, 1993, petitioner contracted yet marriage.9
G.R. No. 150758 February 18, 2004
another marriage, this one with a certain Nilda
Villegas, before Judge German Lee, Jr. of the On November 10, 1997, the Regional Trial Court
VERONICO TENEBRO, petitioner
Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch of Lapu-lapu City, Branch 54, rendered a decision
vs.
15.2 When Ancajas learned of this third marriage, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable
THE HONORABLE COURT OF
she verified from Villareyes whether the latter was doubt of the crime of bigamy under Article 349 of
APPEALS, respondent.
indeed married to petitioner. In a handwritten the Revised Penal Code, and sentencing him to
letter,3 Villareyes confirmed that petitioner, four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
DECISION Veronico Tenebro, was indeed her husband. correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and
one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. 10 On
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: Ancajas thereafter filed a complaint for bigamy appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
against petitioner.4 The Information,5 which was decision of the trial court. Petitioner’s motion for
We are called on to decide the novel issue docketed as Criminal Case No. 013095-L, reads: reconsideration was denied for lack of merit.
concerning the effect of the judicial declaration of
the nullity of a second or subsequent marriage, That on the 10th day of April 1990, in the City of Hence, the instant petition for review on the
on the ground of psychological incapacity, on an Lapu-lapu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction following assignment of errors:
individual’s criminal liability for bigamy. We hold of this Honorable Court, the aforenamed
that the subsequent judicial declaration of nullity accused, having been previously united in lawful I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF
of marriage on the ground of psychological marriage with Hilda Villareyes, and without the APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED, AND
incapacity does not retroact to the date of the said marriage having been legally dissolved, did THIS ERROR IS CORRECTIBLE IN
celebration of the marriage insofar as the then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously THIS APPEAL – WHEN IT AFFIRMED
Philippines’ penal laws are concerned. As such, contract a second marriage with LETICIA THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE
an individual who contracts a second or ANCAJAS, which second or subsequent COURT A QUO CONVICTING THE
subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a marriage of the accused has all the essential ACCUSED FOR (sic) THE CRIME OF
valid marriage is criminally liable for bigamy, requisites for validity were it not for the subsisting BIGAMY, DESPITE THE NON-
notwithstanding the subsequent declaration that first marriage. EXISTENCE OF THE FIRST
the second marriage is void ab initio on the MARRIAGE AND INSUFFICIENCY OF
ground of psychological incapacity. EVIDENCE.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Petitioner in this case, Veronico Tenebro, II. THE COURT ERRED IN
When arraigned, petitioner entered a plea of "not
contracted marriage with private complainant CONVICTING THE ACCUSED FOR (sic)
guilty".6
Leticia Ancajas on April 10, 1990. The two were THE CRIME OF BIGAMY DESPITE
wed by Judge Alfredo B. Perez, Jr. of the City CLEAR PROOF THAT THE MARRIAGE
Trial Court of Lapu-lapu City. Tenebro and During the trial, petitioner admitted having
BETWEEN THE ACCUSED AND
cohabited with Villareyes from 1984-1988, with
1
 PRIVATE COMPLAINANT HAD BEEN First, the prosecution presented sufficient This being the case, the certified copy of the
DECLARED NULL AND VOID AB INITIO evidence, both documentary and oral, to prove marriage contract, issued by a public officer in
AND WITHOUT LEGAL FORCE AND the existence of the first marriage between custody thereof, was admissible as the best
EFFECT.11 petitioner and Villareyes. Documentary evidence evidence of its contents. The marriage contract
presented was in the form of: (1) a copy of a plainly indicates that a marriage was celebrated
After a careful review of the evidence on record, marriage contract between Tenebro and between petitioner and Villareyes on November
we find no cogent reason to disturb the assailed Villareyes, dated November 10, 1986, which, as 10, 1986, and it should be accorded the full faith
judgment. seen on the document, was solemnized at the and credence given to public documents.
Manila City Hall before Rev. Julieto Torres, a
Minister of the Gospel, and certified to by the Moreover, an examination of the wordings of the
Under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, the
Office of the Civil Registrar of Manila;15 and (2) a certification issued by the National Statistics
elements of the crime of Bigamy are:
handwritten letter from Villareyes to Ancajas Office on October 7, 1995 and that issued by the
dated July 12, 1994, informing Ancajas that City Civil Registry of Manila on February 3, 1997
(1) that the offender has been legally Villareyes and Tenebro were legally married.16 would plainly show that neither document attests
married;
as a positive fact that there was no marriage
To assail the veracity of the marriage contract, celebrated between Veronico B. Tenebro and
(2) that the first marriage has not been petitioner presented (1) a certification issued by Hilda B. Villareyes on November 10, 1986.
legally dissolved or, in case his or her the National Statistics Office dated October 7, Rather, the documents merely attest that the
spouse is absent, the absent spouse 1995;17 and (2) a certification issued by the City respective issuing offices have no record of such
could not yet be presumed dead Civil Registry of Manila, dated February 3, a marriage. Documentary evidence as to the
according to the Civil Code; 1997.18 Both these documents attest that the absence of a record is quite different from
respective issuing offices have no record of a documentary evidence as to the absence of a
(3) that he contracts a second or marriage celebrated between Veronico B. marriage ceremony, or documentary evidence as
subsequent marriage; and Tenebro and Hilda B. Villareyes on November 10, to the invalidity of the marriage between Tenebro
1986. and Villareyes.
(4) that the second or subsequent
marriage has all the essential requisites To our mind, the documents presented by the The marriage contract presented by the
for validity.12 defense cannot adequately assail the marriage prosecution serves as positive evidence as to the
contract, which in itself would already have been existence of the marriage between Tenebro and
Petitioner’s assignment of errors presents a two- sufficient to establish the existence of a marriage Villareyes, which should be given greater
tiered defense, in which he (1) denies the between Tenebro and Villareyes. credence than documents testifying merely as to
existence of his first marriage to Villareyes, and absence of any record of the marriage, especially
(2) argues that the declaration of the nullity of the All three of these documents fall in the category considering that there is absolutely no
second marriage on the ground of psychological of public documents, and the Rules of Court requirement in the law that a marriage contract
incapacity, which is an alleged indicator that his provisions relevant to public documents are needs to be submitted to the civil registrar as a
marriage to Ancajas lacks the essential requisites applicable to all. Pertinent to the marriage condition precedent for the validity of a marriage.
for validity, retroacts to the date on which the contract, Section 7 of Rule 130 of the Rules of The mere fact that no record of a marriage exists
second marriage was celebrated.13 Hence, Court reads as follows: does not invalidate the marriage, provided all
petitioner argues that all four of the elements of requisites for its validity are present.19 There is no
the crime of bigamy are absent, and prays for his evidence presented by the defense that would
Sec. 7. Evidence admissible when original
acquittal.14 document is a public record. – When the original indicate that the marriage between Tenebro and
Villareyes lacked any requisite for validity, apart
of a document is in the custody of a public officer
Petitioner’s defense must fail on both counts. from the self-serving testimony of the accused
or is recorded in a public office, its contents may
himself. Balanced against this testimony are
be proved by a certified copy issued by the public
Villareyes’ letter, Ancajas’ testimony that
officer in custody thereof (Emphasis ours).
petitioner informed her of the existence of the
2
valid first marriage, and petitioner’s own conduct, As a second or subsequent marriage contracted marriage are classified by the Family Code into
which would all tend to indicate that the first during the subsistence of petitioner’s valid essential (legal capacity of the contracting parties
marriage had all the requisites for validity. marriage to Villareyes, petitioner’s marriage to and their consent freely given in the presence of
Ancajas would be null and void ab initio the solemnizing officer)23 and formal (authority of
Finally, although the accused claims that he took completely regardless of petitioner’s the solemnizing officer, marriage license, and
steps to verify the non-existence of the first psychological capacity or incapacity.22 Since a marriage ceremony wherein the parties
marriage to Villareyes by requesting his brother marriage contracted during the subsistence of a personally declare their agreement to marry
to validate such purported non-existence, it is valid marriage is automatically void, the nullity of before the solemnizing officer in the presence of
significant to note that the certifications issued by this second marriage is not per se an argument at least two witnesses).24 Under Article 5 of the
the National Statistics Office and the City Civil for the avoidance of criminal liability for bigamy. Family Code, any male or female of the age of
Registry of Manila are dated October 7, 1995 and Pertinently, Article 349 of the Revised Penal eighteen years or upwards not under any of the
February 3, 1997, respectively. Both documents, Code criminalizes "any person who shall contract impediments mentioned in Articles 3725 and
therefore, are dated after the accused’s marriage a second or subsequent marriage before the 3826 may contract marriage.27
to his second wife, private respondent in this former marriage has been legally dissolved, or
case. before the absent spouse has been declared In this case, all the essential and formal requisites
presumptively dead by means of a judgment for the validity of marriage were satisfied by
rendered in the proper proceedings". A plain petitioner and Ancajas. Both were over eighteen
As such, this Court rules that there was sufficient
reading of the law, therefore, would indicate that years of age, and they voluntarily contracted the
evidence presented by the prosecution to prove
the provision penalizes the mere act of second marriage with the required license before
the first and second requisites for the crime of
contracting a second or a subsequent marriage Judge Alfredo B. Perez, Jr. of the City Trial Court
bigamy.
during the subsistence of a valid marriage. of Lapu-lapu City, in the presence of at least two
witnesses.
The second tier of petitioner’s defense hinges on
Thus, as soon as the second marriage to Ancajas
the effects of the subsequent judicial
was celebrated on April 10, 1990, during the Although the judicial declaration of the nullity of a
declaration20 of the nullity of the second marriage
subsistence of the valid first marriage, the crime marriage on the ground of psychological
on the ground of psychological incapacity.
of bigamy had already been consummated. To incapacity retroacts to the date of the celebration
our mind, there is no cogent reason for of the marriage insofar as the vinculum between
Petitioner argues that this subsequent judicial distinguishing between a subsequent marriage
declaration retroacts to the date of the celebration the spouses is concerned, it is significant to note
that is null and void purely because it is a second that said marriage is not without legal effects.
of the marriage to Ancajas. As such, he argues or subsequent marriage, and a subsequent Among these effects is that children conceived or
that, since his marriage to Ancajas was marriage that is null and void on the ground of
subsequently declared void ab initio, the crime of born before the judgment of absolute nullity of the
psychological incapacity, at least insofar as marriage shall be considered legitimate. 28 There
bigamy was not committed.21 criminal liability for bigamy is concerned. The is therefore a recognition written into the law itself
State’s penal laws protecting the institution of that such a marriage, although void ab initio, may
This argument is not impressed with merit. marriage are in recognition of the sacrosanct still produce legal consequences. Among these
character of this special contract between legal consequences is incurring criminal liability
Petitioner makes much of the judicial declaration spouses, and punish an individual’s deliberate for bigamy. To hold otherwise would render the
of the nullity of the second marriage on the disregard of the permanent character of the State’s penal laws on bigamy completely
ground of psychological incapacity, invoking special bond between spouses, which petitioner nugatory, and allow individuals to deliberately
Article 36 of the Family Code. What petitioner fails has undoubtedly done. ensure that each marital contract be flawed in
to realize is that a declaration of the nullity of the some manner, and to thus escape the
second marriage on the ground of psychological Moreover, the declaration of the nullity of the consequences of contracting multiple marriages,
incapacity is of absolutely no moment insofar as second marriage on the ground of psychological while beguiling throngs of hapless women with
the State’s penal laws are concerned. incapacity is not an indicator that petitioner’s the promise of futurity and commitment.
marriage to Ancajas lacks the essential requisites
for validity. The requisites for the validity of a
3
As such, we rule that the third and fourth sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate during the subsistence of the prior union, which
requisites for the crime of bigamy are present in penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of would have been binding were it not for its being
this case, and affirm the judgment of the Court of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) bigamous.
Appeals. years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as
maximum, is AFFIRMED in toto. Would the absolute nullity of either the first or the
As a final point, we note that based on the second marriage, prior to its judicial declaration
evidence on record, petitioner contracted SO ORDERED. as being void, constitute a valid defense in a
marriage a third time, while his marriages to criminal action for bigamy?
Villareyes and Ancajas were both still subsisting. Davide, Jr., C.J. (Chairman), Panganiban,
Although this is irrelevant in the determination of Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Azcuna, I believe that, except for a void marriage on
the accused’s guilt for purposes of this particular JJ., concur. account of the psychological incapacity of a party
case, the act of the accused displays a deliberate Puno, J., join the opinion of J. Vitug. or both parties to the marriage under Article 36 of
disregard for the sanctity of marriage, and the Vitug, J., see separate opinion. the Family Code (as so hereinafter explained),
State does not look kindly on such activities. Quisumbing, J., join the dissent in view of void the answer must be in the affirmative. Void
Marriage is a special contract, the key nuptia. marriages are inexistent from the very beginning,
characteristic of which is its permanence. When Carpio, J., see dissenting opinion. and no judicial decree is required to establish
an individual manifests a deliberate pattern of Austria-Martinez, J., join the dissent of J. Carpio. their nullity.2 As early as the case of People vs.
flouting the foundation of the State’s basic social Carpio-Morales, J., join the dissent of J. Carpio. Aragon3 this Court has underscored the fact that
institution, the State’s criminal laws on bigamy Tinga, J., join the dissent of J. Carpio. the Revised Penal Code itself does not, unlike the
step in. Callejo, Sr., J., see separate dissent. rule then prevailing in Spain, require the judicial
declaration of nullity of a prior void marriage
Under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, as before it can be raised by way of a defense in a
amended, the penalty for the crime of bigamy is criminal case for bigamy. Had the law
prision mayor, which has a duration of six (6) contemplated otherwise, said the Court, " an
years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years. There express provision to that effect would or should
SEPARATE OPINION>
being neither aggravating nor mitigating have been inserted in the law, (but that in) its
circumstance, the same shall be imposed in its absence, (the courts) are bound by (the) rule of
medium period. Applying the Indeterminate VITUG, J.: strict interpretation" of penal statutes. In contrast
Sentence Law, petitioner shall be entitled to a to a voidable marriage which legally exists until
minimum term, to be taken from the penalty next Veronico Tenebro has been charged with bigamy judicially annulled (and, therefore, not a defense
lower in degree, i.e., prision correccional which for contracting, while still being married to Hilda in a bigamy charge if the second marriage were
has a duration of six (6) months and one (1) day Villareyes, a second marriage with private contracted prior to the decree of annulment) 4 the
to six (6) years. Hence, the Court of Appeals complainant Leticia Ancajas. Tenebro argues that complete nullity, however, of a previously
correctly affirmed the decision of the trial court since his second marriage with Ancajas has contracted marriage, being void ab initio and
which sentenced petitioner to suffer an ultimately been declared void ab initio on the legally inexistent, can outrightly be defense in an
indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) ground of the latter’s psychological incapacity, he indictment of bigamy.
months of prision correccional, as minimum, to should be acquitted for the crime of bigamy.
eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, It has been held that, by virtue of Article 40 of the
as maximum. The offense of bigamy is committed when one Family Code, a person may be convicted of
contracts "a second or subsequent marriage bigamy although the first marriage is ultimately
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the before the former marriage has been legally adjudged void ab initio if, at the time the second
instant petition for review is DENIED. The dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been marriage is contracted, there has as yet no
assailed decision of the Court of Appeals in CA- declared presumptively dead by means of a judicial declaration of nullity of the prior
G.R. CR No. 21636, convicting petitioner judgment rendered in the proper marriage.5 I maintain strong reservations to this
Veronico Tenebro of the crime of Bigamy and proceedings".1 Bigamy presupposes a valid prior ruling. Article 40 of the Family Code reads:
marriage and a subsequent marriage, contracted
4
"Article 40. The absolute nullity of the previous voidable, more than a void, marriage, remaining Considerations, both logical and practical, would
marriage may be invoked for purposes of to be valid until it is judicially decreed to be a point to the fact that a "void" marriage due to
remarriage on the basis solely of the final nullity. Thus, Article 54 of the Family Code psychological incapacity remains, for all intents
judgment declaring such previous marriage void." considers children conceived or born of such a and purposes, to be binding and efficacious until
void marriage before its judicial declaration of judicially declared otherwise. Without such
It is only "for purpose of remarriage" that the law nullity to be legitimate similar to the rule on a marriage having first been declared a nullity (or
has expressed that the absolute nullity of the voidable marriage. It is expected, even as I otherwise dissolved), a subsequent marriage
previous marriage may be invoked "on the basis believe it safe to assume, that the spouses’ rights could constitute bigamy. Thus, a civil case
solely of the final judgment declaring such and obligations, property regime and questioning the validity of the first marriage would
previous marriage void." It may not be amiss to successional rights would continue unaffected, as not be a prejudicial issue much in the same way
state that under the regime of the Civil Code of if it were a voidable marriage, unless and until the that a civil case assailing a prior "voidable"
1950, the Supreme Court, in Wiegel vs. Judge marriage is judicially declared void for basically marriage (being valid until annulled) would not be
Sempio-Diy,6 has held that a subsequent two reasons: First, psychological incapacity, a a prejudicial question to the prosecution of a
marriage of one of the spouses of a prior void newly-added ground for the nullity of a marriage criminal offense for bigamy.
marriage is itself (the subsequent marriage) void under the Family Code, breaches neither the
if it were contracted before a judicial declaration essential nor the formal requisites of a valid In cases where the second marriage is void on
of nullity of the previous marriage. Although this marriages;10 and second, unlike the other grounds other than the existence of the first
pronouncement has been abandoned in a later grounds for nullity of marriage (i.e., relationship, marriage, this Court has declared in a line of
decision of the court in Yap vs. Court of minority of the parties, lack of license, mistake in cases that no crime of bigamy is
Appeals,7 the Family Code, however has seen it the identity of the parties) which are capable of committed.12 The Court has explained that for a
fit to adopt the Wiegel rule but only for purpose of relatively easy demonstration, psychological person to be held guilty of bigamy, it must, even
remarriage which is just to say that the incapacity, however, being a mental state, may as it needs only, be shown that the subsequent
subsequent marriage shall itself be considered not so readily be as evident.11 It would have been marriage has all the essential elements of a valid
void. There is no clear indication to conclude that logical for the Family Code to consider such a marriage, were it not for the subsisting first union.
the Family Code has amended or intended to marriage explicitly voidable rather than void if it Hence, where it is established that the second
amend the Revised penal Code or to abandon the were not for apparent attempt to make it closely marriage has been contracted without the
settled and prevailing jurisprudence on the coincide with the Canon Law rules and necessary license and thus void,13 or that the
matter.8 nomenclature. accused is merely forced to enter into the second
(voidable) marriage,14 no criminal liability for the
A void marriage under Article 36 of the Family Indeed, a void marriage due to psychological crime of bigamy can attach. In both and like
Code is a class by itself. The provision has been incapacity appears to merely differ from a instances, however, the lapses refers to the
from Canon law primarily to reconcile the grounds voidable marriage in that, unlike the latter, it is not elements required for contracting a valid
for nullity of marriage under civil law with those of convalidated by either cohabitation or marriage. If, then, all the requisites for the
church laws.9 The "psychological incapacity to prescription. It might be recalled that prior to perfection of the contract marriage, freely and
comply" with the essential marital obligations of republic Act No. 8533, further amending the voluntarily entered into, are shown to be extant,
the spouses is completely distinct from other Family Code, an action or defense of absolute the criminal liability for bigamy can unassailably
grounds for nullity which are confined to the nullity of marriage falling under Article 36, arise.
essential or formal requisites of a marriage, such celebrated before the effectivity of the Code,
as lack of legal capacity or disqualification of the could prescribe in ten years following the Since psychological incapacity, upon the
contracting parties, want of consent, absence of effectivity of the Family Code. The initial provision other hand, does not relate to an infirmity in
a marriage license, or the like. of the ten-year period of prescription seems to the elements, either essential or formal, in
betray a real consciousness by the framers that contacting a valid marriage, the declaration of
marriages falling under Article 36 are truly meant nullity subsequent to the bigamous marriage
The effects of a marriage attended by
to be inexistent. due to that ground, without more, would be
psychological incapacity of a party or the parties
thereto may be said to have the earmarks of a inconsequential in a criminal charge for
bigamy. The judicial declaration of nullity of a
5
bigamous marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity merely nullifies
the effects of the marriage but it does not negate
the fact of perfection of the bigamous marriage.
Its subsequent declaration of nullity dissolves the
relationship of the spouses but, being alien to the
requisite conditions for the perfection of the
marriage, the judgment of the court is no defense
on the part of the offender who had entered into
it.

Accordingly, I vote to dismiss the petition.