9/16/2016

G.R.No.145226

TodayisFriday,September16,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.145226February06,2004
LUCIOMORIGOyCACHO,petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,respondent.

DECISION

QUISUMBING,J.:
This petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse the decision1 dated October 21, 1999 of the Court of
Appeals in CAG.R. CR No. 20700, which affirmed the judgment2 dated August 5, 1996 of the Regional Trial
Court(RTC)ofBohol,Branch4,inCriminalCaseNo.8688.ThetrialcourtfoundhereinpetitionerLucioMorigoy
Cacho guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy and sentenced him to a prison term of seven (7) months of
prisioncorreccionalasminimumtosix(6)yearsandone(1)dayofprisionmayorasmaximum.Alsoassailedin
this petition is the resolution3 of the appellate court, dated September 25, 2000, denying Morigos motion for
reconsideration.
Thefactsofthiscase,asfoundbythecourtaquo,areasfollows:
Appellant Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates at the house of Catalina Tortor at Tagbilaran
City,ProvinceofBohol,foraperiodoffour(4)years(from19741978).
Afterschoolyear197778,LucioMorigoandLuciaBarretelostcontactwitheachother.
In 1984, Lucio Morigo was surprised to receive a card from Lucia Barrete from Singapore. The former
repliedandafteranexchangeofletters,theybecamesweethearts.
In 1986, Lucia returned to the Philippines but left again for Canada to work there. While in Canada, they
maintainedconstantcommunication.
In1990,LuciacamebacktothePhilippinesandproposedtopetitionappellanttojoinherinCanada.Both
agreed to get married, thus they were married on August 30, 1990 at the Iglesia de Filipina Nacional at
Catagdaan,Pilar,Bohol.
OnSeptember8,1990,LuciareportedbacktoherworkinCanadaleavingappellantLuciobehind.
On August 19, 1991, Lucia filed with the Ontario Court (General Division) a petition for divorce against
appellantwhichwasgrantedbythecourtonJanuary17,1992andtotakeeffectonFebruary17,1992.
OnOctober4,1992,appellantLucioMorigomarriedMariaJecechaLumbago4attheVirgensaBarangay
Parish,TagbilaranCity,Bohol.
On September 21, 1993, accused filed a complaint for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage in the
RegionalTrialCourtofBohol,docketedasCivilCaseNo.6020.Thecomplaintseek(sic)amongothers,the
declarationofnullityofaccusedsmarriagewithLucia,onthegroundthatnomarriageceremonyactually
tookplace.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html

1/6

9/16/2016

G.R.No.145226

OnOctober19,1993,appellantwaschargedwithBigamyinanInformation5filedbytheCityProsecutorof
Tagbilaran[City],withtheRegionalTrialCourtofBohol.6
Thepetitionermovedforsuspensionofthearraignmentonthegroundthatthecivilcaseforjudicialnullificationof
his marriage with Lucia posed a prejudicial question in the bigamy case. His motion was granted, but
subsequently denied upon motion for reconsideration by the prosecution. When arraigned in the bigamy case,
whichwasdocketedasCriminalCaseNo.8688,hereinpetitionerpleadednotguiltytothecharge.Trialthereafter
ensued.
OnAugust5,1996,theRTCofBoholhandeddownitsjudgmentinCriminalCaseNo.8688,asfollows:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Court finds accused Lucio Morigo y Cacho guilty
beyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofBigamyandsentenceshimtosufferthepenaltyofimprisonment
ranging from Seven (7) Months of Prision Correccional as minimum to Six (6) Years and One (1) Day of
PrisionMayorasmaximum.
SOORDERED.7
Inconvictinghereinpetitioner,thetrialcourtdiscountedpetitionersclaimthathisfirstmarriagetoLuciawasnull
and void ab initio. Following Domingo v. Court of Appeals,8 the trial court ruled that want of a valid marriage
ceremonyisnotadefenseinachargeofbigamy.Thepartiestoamarriageshouldnotbeallowedtoassumethat
their marriage is void even if such be the fact but must first secure a judicial declaration of the nullity of their
marriagebeforetheycanbeallowedtomarryagain.
AnenttheCanadiandivorceobtainedbyLucia,thetrialcourtcitedRamirezv.Gmur,9whichheldthatthecourtof
acountryinwhichneitherofthespousesisdomiciledandinwhichoneorbothspousesmayresortmerelyforthe
purposeofobtainingadivorce,hasnojurisdictiontodeterminethematrimonialstatusoftheparties.Assuch,a
divorcegrantedbysaidcourtisnotentitledtorecognitionanywhere.DebunkingLuciosdefenseofgoodfaithin
contractingthesecondmarriage,thetrialcourtstressedthatfollowingPeoplev.Bitdu,10everyoneispresumedto
knowthelaw,andthefactthatonedoesnotknowthathisactconstitutesaviolationofthelawdoesnotexempt
himfromtheconsequencesthereof.
Seasonably,petitionerfiledanappealwiththeCourtofAppeals,docketedasCAG.R.CRNo.20700.
Meanwhile, on October 23, 1997, or while CAG.R. CR No. 20700 was pending before the appellate court, 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. No appeal was taken from this decision, which then
becamefinalandexecutory.
OnOctober21,1999,theappellatecourtdecidedCAG.R.CRNo.20700asfollows:
WHEREFORE,findingnoerrorintheappealeddecision,thesameisherebyAFFIRMEDintoto.
SOORDERED.11
Inaffirmingtheassailedjudgmentofconviction,theappellatecourtstressedthatthesubsequentdeclarationof
nullityofLuciosmarriagetoLuciainCivilCaseNo.6020couldnotacquitLucio.Thereasonisthatwhatissought
tobepunishedbyArticle34912oftheRevisedPenalCodeistheactofcontractingasecondmarriagebeforethe
firstmarriagehadbeendissolved.Hence,theCAheld,thefactthatthefirstmarriagewasvoidfromthebeginning
isnotavaliddefenseinabigamycase.
TheCourtofAppealsalsopointedoutthatthedivorcedecreeobtainedbyLuciafromtheCanadiancourtcould
notbeaccordedvalidityinthePhilippines,pursuanttoArticle1513oftheCivilCodeandgiventhefactthatitis
contrary to public policy in this jurisdiction. Under Article 1714 of the Civil Code, a declaration of public policy
cannotberenderedineffectualbyajudgmentpromulgatedinaforeignjurisdiction.
Petitionermovedforreconsiderationoftheappellatecourtsdecision,contendingthatthedoctrineinMendiolav.
People,15allowsmistakeuponadifficultquestionoflaw(suchastheeffectofaforeigndivorcedecree)tobea
basisforgoodfaith.
OnSeptember25,2000,theappellatecourtdeniedthemotionforlackofmerit.16However,thedenialwasbya
split vote. The ponente of the appellate courts original decision in CAG.R. CR No. 20700, Justice Eugenio S.
Labitoria,joinedintheopinionpreparedbyJusticeBernardoP.Abesamis.Thedissentobservedthatasthefirst
marriagewasvalidlydeclaredvoidabinitio, then there was no first marriage to speak of. Since the date of the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html

2/6

9/16/2016

G.R.No.145226

nullity retroacts to the date of the first marriage and since herein petitioner was, in the eyes of the law, never
married,hecannotbeconvictedbeyondreasonabledoubtofbigamy.
Thepresentpetitionraisesthefollowingissuesforourresolution:
A.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO APPLY THE RULE THAT IN
CRIMES PENALIZED UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE, CRIMINAL INTENT IS AN INDISPENSABLE
REQUISITE. COROLLARILY, WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO
APPRECIATE [THE] PETITIONERS LACK OF CRIMINAL INTENT WHEN HE CONTRACTED THE
SECONDMARRIAGE.
B.
WHETHERORNOTTHECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINHOLDINGTHATTHERULINGINPEOPLEVS.
BITDU(58PHIL.817)ISAPPLICABLETOTHECASEATBAR.
C.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO APPLY THE RULE THAT EACH
ANDEVERYCIRCUMSTANCEFAVORINGTHEINNOCENCEOFTHEACCUSEDMUSTBETAKENINTO
ACCOUNT.17
To our mind, the primordial issue should be whether or not petitioner committed bigamy and if so, whether his
defenseofgoodfaithisvalid.
The petitioner submits that he should not be faulted for relying in good faith upon the divorce decree of the
Ontariocourt.Hehighlightsthefactthathecontractedthesecondmarriageopenlyandpublicly,whichaperson
intentuponbigamywouldnotbedoing.Thepetitionerfurtherarguesthathislackofcriminalintentismaterialtoa
convictionoracquittalintheinstantcase.Thecrimeofbigamy,justlikeotherfeloniespunishedundertheRevised
PenalCode,ismalainse,andhence,goodfaithandlackofcriminalintentareallowedasacompletedefense.
Hestressesthatthereisadifferencebetweentheintenttocommitthecrimeandtheintenttoperpetratetheact.
Hence,itdoesnotnecessarilyfollowthathisintentiontocontractasecondmarriageistantamounttoanintentto
commitbigamy.
For the respondent, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) submits that good faith in the instant case is a
convenientbutflimsyexcuse.TheSolicitorGeneralreliesuponourrulinginMarbellaBobisv.Bobis,18whichheld
thatbigamycanbesuccessfullyprosecutedprovidedalltheelementsconcur,stressingthatunderArticle4019of
the Family Code, a judicial declaration of nullity is a must before a party may remarry. Whether or not the
petitioner was aware of said Article 40 is of no account as everyone is presumed to know the law. The OSG
counters that petitioners contention that he was in good faith because he relied on the divorce decree of the
Ontario court is negated by his act of filing Civil Case No. 6020, seeking a judicial declaration of nullity of his
marriagetoLucia.
Beforewedelveintopetitionersdefenseofgoodfaithandlackofcriminalintent,wemustfirstdeterminewhether
alltheelementsofbigamyarepresentinthiscase.InMarbellaBobisv.Bobis,20 we laid down the elements of
bigamythus:
(1)theoffenderhasbeenlegallymarried
(2) the first marriage has not been legally dissolved, or in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent
spousehasnotbeenjudiciallydeclaredpresumptivelydead
(3)hecontractsasubsequentmarriageand
(4)thesubsequentmarriagewouldhavebeenvalidhaditnotbeenfortheexistenceofthefirst.
Applyingtheforegoingtesttotheinstantcase,wenotethatduringthependencyofCAG.R.CRNo.20700,the
RTCofBoholBranch1,handeddownthefollowingdecisioninCivilCaseNo.6020,towit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered decreeing the annulment of the
marriageenteredintobypetitionerLucioMorigoandLuciaBarreteonAugust23,1990inPilar,Boholand
furtherdirectingtheLocalCivilRegistrarofPilar,Boholtoeffectthecancellationofthemarriagecontract.
SOORDERED.21
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html

3/6

9/16/2016

G.R.No.145226

The trial court found that there was no actual marriage ceremony performed between Lucio and Lucia by a
solemnizingofficer.Instead,whattranspiredwasameresigningofthemarriagecontractbythetwo,withoutthe
presenceofasolemnizingofficer.Thetrialcourtthusheldthatthemarriageisvoidabinitio,inaccordancewith
Articles322 and 423 of the Family Code. As the dissenting opinion in CAG.R. CR No. 20700, correctly puts it,
"Thissimplymeansthattherewasnomarriagetobeginwithandthatsuchdeclarationofnullityretroactstothe
dateofthefirstmarriage.Inotherwords,forallintentsandpurposes,reckonedfromthedateofthedeclaration
ofthefirstmarriageasvoidabinitiotothedateofthecelebrationofthefirstmarriage,theaccusedwas,under
theeyesofthelaw,nevermarried."24Therecordsshowthatnoappealwastakenfromthedecisionofthetrial
courtinCivilCaseNo.6020,hence,thedecisionhadlongbecomefinalandexecutory.
Thefirstelementofbigamyasacrimerequiresthattheaccusedmusthavebeenlegallymarried.Butinthiscase,
legallyspeaking,thepetitionerwasnevermarriedtoLuciaBarrete.Thus,thereisnofirstmarriagetospeakof.
Undertheprincipleofretroactivityofamarriagebeingdeclaredvoidabinitio,thetwowerenevermarried"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,itisbutlogicalthataconvictionforsaidoffensecannotbesustainedwherethereisnofirstmarriageto
speakof.Thepetitioner,must,perforcebeacquittedoftheinstantcharge.
Thepresentcaseisanalogousto,butmustbedistinguishedfromMercadov.Tan.25Inthelattercase,thejudicial
declarationofnullityofthefirstmarriagewaslikewiseobtainedafterthesecondmarriagewasalreadycelebrated.
Weheldthereinthat:
Ajudicialdeclarationofnullityofapreviousmarriageisnecessarybeforeasubsequentonecanbelegally
contracted. One who enters into a subsequent marriage without first obtaining such judicial declaration is
guiltyofbigamy.Thisprincipleapplieseveniftheearlierunionischaracterizedbystatutesas"void."26
ItbearsstressingthoughthatinMercado,thefirstmarriagewasactuallysolemnizednotjustonce,buttwice:first
before a judge where a marriage certificate was duly issued and then again six months later before a priest in
religiousrites.Ostensibly,atleast,thefirstmarriageappearedtohavetranspired,althoughlaterdeclaredvoidab
initio.
Intheinstantcase,however,nomarriageceremonyatallwasperformedbyadulyauthorizedsolemnizingofficer.
PetitionerandLuciaBarretemerelysignedamarriagecontractontheirown.Themereprivateactofsigninga
marriagecontractbearsnosemblancetoavalidmarriageandthus,needsnojudicialdeclarationofnullity.Such
actalone,withoutmore,cannotbedeemedtoconstituteanostensiblyvalidmarriageforwhichpetitionermightbe
held liable for bigamy unless he first secures a judicial declaration of nullity before he contracts a subsequent
marriage.
ThelawabhorsaninjusticeandtheCourtismandatedtoliberallyconstrueapenalstatuteinfavorofanaccused
andweigheverycircumstanceinfavorofthepresumptionofinnocencetoensurethatjusticeisdone.Underthe
circumstancesofthepresentcase,weheldthatpetitionerhasnotcommittedbigamy.Further,wealsofindthat
weneednottarryontheissueofthevalidityofhisdefenseofgoodfaithorlackofcriminalintent,whichisnow
mootandacademic.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision, dated October 21, 1999 of the Court of
Appeals in CAG.R. CR No. 20700, as well as the resolution of the appellate court dated September 25, 2000,
denying herein petitioners motion for reconsideration, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petitioner Lucio
MorigoyCachoisACQUITTEDfromthechargeofBIGAMYonthegroundthathisguilthasnotbeenprovenwith
moralcertainty.
SOORDERED.
Puno,(Chairman),AustriaMartinez,Callejo,Sr.,andTinga,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1Rollo,pp.3844.PennedbyAssociateJusticeEugenioS.LabitoriaandconcurredinbyAssociate

JusticesMarinaL.BuzonandEdgardoP.Cruz.
2Records,pp.114119.
3Rollo,pp.4658.PerAssociateJusticeEdgardoP.Cruz,withAssociateJusticesCancioC.Garciaand

MarinaL.Buzon,concurringandEugenioS.LabitoriaandBernardoP.Abesamis,dissenting.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html

4/6