CASE SYTHESIS

CASE/JURISPRUDE YEAR RELEVANT ISSUE RESULT

NCE
LEONILA G. 2015 YES
SANTIAGO v. PEOPLE
EDUARDO MANUEL 2010 YES
v. PEOPLE Do you need a judicial
VITANGCOL V 2016 declaration of the YES
PEOPLE nullity of the first
CACHO V. PEOPLE 2004 marriage in order to NO
MERCADO V TAN 2000 successfully defend YES
PEOPLE V. 2013 yourself against a YES
OTDUHAN charge of bigamy?
ANTONE VS. 2010 YES
BERONILLA

CASE/JURISP YEAR RELEVANT ISSUE RESULT

RUDENCE
LEONILA G. 2015 Do you need a judicial YES. The crime of bigamy under Article
SANTIAGO v. declaration of the 349 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
PEOPLE nullity of the first The penalty of prision mayor shall be
marriage in order to imposed upon any person who shall
successfully defend contract a second or subsequent
yourself against a marriage before the former marriage
charge of bigamy? has been legally dissolved, or before
the absent spouse has been declared
presumptively dead by means of a
judgment rendered in the proper
proceedings.
The CA and SC both affirmed the
decision of RTC citing Art. 349 of the
Revised Penal Code requiring
judgement in proper proceeding. This
means there is a need for judicial
declaration, regardless of the absence
of any element in the second marriage.
EDUARDO 2010 Do you need a judicial YES. The Supreme Court declared that
MANUEL v. declaration of the petitioner’s belief, that his first
PEOPLE nullity of the first marriage had been dissolved because of
marriage in order to his first wifes 20-year absence, even if
successfully defend
 yourself against a true, did not exculpate him from
charge of bigamy? liability for bigamy.
VITANGCOL V 2016 Do you need a judicial YES. Persons intending to contract a
PEOPLE declaration of the second marriage must first secure a
nullity of the first judicial declaration of nullity of their
marriage in order to first marriage. If they proceed with the
successfully defend second marriage without the judicial
yourself against a declaration, they are guilty of bigamy
charge of bigamy? regardless of evidence of the nullity of
the first marriage.
CACHO V. 2004 Do you need a judicial NO. The Supreme Court compared the
PEOPLE declaration of the case with Mercado v Tan, and averred
nullity of the first that:
marriage in order to A judicial declaration of nullity of a
successfully defend previous marriage is necessary before a
yourself against a subsequent one can be legally
charge of bigamy? contracted. One who enters into a
subsequent marriage without first
obtaining such judicial declaration is
guilty of bigamy. This principle
applies even if the earlier union is
characterized by statutes as "void."
However, since one of the requirements
for a valid marriage is lacking (marriage
ceremony), the marriage is declared as
void. According to the Supreme
Court, the act of signing marriage
license is not tantamount to a valid
marriage. Hence, the second marriage
is invalid and therefore, there is no need
acquire a judicial declaration.
MERCADO V 2000 Do you need a judicial YES. A judicial declaration of nullity of a
TAN declaration of the previous marriage is necessary before a
nullity of the first subsequent one can be legally
marriage in order to contracted. One who enters into a
successfully defend subsequent marriage without first
yourself against a obtaining such judicial declaration is
charge of bigamy? guilty of bigamy. This principle applies
even if the earlier union is
characterized by statute as void.
The fact that petitioner subsequently
obtained a judicial declaration of the
nullity of the first marriage was
immaterial. As such, the crime had
already been consummated by then.
 PEOPLE V. 2013 Do you need a judicial YES. Respondent’s claim that there are
OTDUHAN declaration of the more reasons to quash the information
nullity of the first against him because he obtained the
marriage in order to declaration of nullity of marriage before
successfully defend the filing of the complaint for bigamy
yourself against a against him is without merit. Therefore,
charge of bigamy? he who contracts a second marriage
before the judicial declaration of
nullity of the first marriage assumes
the risk of being prosecuted for
bigamy.
ANTONE VS. 2010 Do you need a judicial YES. The decision in Morigo v People
BERONILLA declaration of the is now contrary to the new provision
nullity of the first of the Family Code, which was
marriage in order to promulgated by the late President
successfully defend Corazon C. Aquino in 1987, a few years
yourself against a before respondents subsequent
charge of bigamy marriage was celebrated in 1991.

EXPLANATION:

Seven jurisprudences are discussed in this case synthesis, to wit: Leonila G. Santiago
v. People, Eduardo Manuel v. People, Vitangcol v. People, Cacho v. People, Mercado v. Tan,
People v. Otduhan, and Antone Vs. Beronilla. All the herein cited cases were decided by the
Honorable Supreme Court from 2000 to 2016, focusing on the crime of bigamy.

All these cases were able to establish the elements of bigamy as provided for in Article
349 of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:
1.) that the offender has been legally married;
2.) that the first marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse
is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil
Code;
3.) that he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and
4.) that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity
These elements were well-established in the subject jurisprudence. However, the issue of
the validity of the first and subsequent marriage was common. Specifically, the requisite of a
judicial declaration of the first marriage.

The Ruling in Santiago

Although the Supreme Court magnified the issue lack of knowledge and deliberate
flaw in subsequent marriage, the Supreme Court explicitly required judicial declaration of
first marriage. The ruling of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals was affirmed
by the Supreme Court. What was cited and underscored in this jurisprudence is the penalty
provided for in Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:
 The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall
contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been
legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively
dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings.
[Emphasis supplied]

The Supreme Court stressed that a “judgement rendered in proper proceeding” is

required prior to a subsequent marriage, regardless if the first spouse was presumed dead
or not. The Supreme Court upheld the lack of authority of private individual to consider their
marriages void.

More so, lack of knowledge is not a valid defense to suffice this requirement. Worse,
is to commit deliberate act to put a flaw in the marriage. In the case of Santiago, the Supreme
Court found no merit on the defense of the petitioner that subsequent marriage is not valid
for her lack of knowledge of the prior marriage of husband, when facts of the case did not
support her contention. As such, a more severe punishment was rendered not only for not
satisfying the requirement for a judicial declaration, but also for the knowledge of a prior
marriage, yet subsequent marriage was intentionally committed with legal impediments.

The Ruling in Manuel

Similar in the case of Santiago, the ruling in the case of Manuel v. People required the
judicial declaration of marriage to render subsequent marriage valid. The Supreme Court
provided the rationale for the need of judicial declaration. The provision was taken from
Article 486 of the Spanish Penal Code, to wit:

El que contrajere Segundo o ulterior matrimonio sin hallarse legtimamente

disuelto el anterior, ser castigado con la pena de prision mayor. Xxx

This means that the reason why bigamy is considered a felony is to preserve and ensure the
juridical tie of marriage established by law. The Supreme Court further explains the spirit of
the law, to wit:

The phrase or before the absent spouse had been declared presumptively dead by means
of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings was incorporated in the Revised Penal
Code because the drafters of the law were of the impression that in consonance with the
civil law which provides for the presumption of death after an absence of a number of
years, the judicial declaration of presumed death like annulment of marriage
should be a justification for bigamy. [Emphasis supplied]

Omission is not an excuse. The legal maxim ignorantia legis non excusant , hence, lack
of knowledge does not excuse anyone from the crime of bigamy, if requirement for a valid
judicial declaration is not sufficed prior to the second marriage.
The Ruling in Vitangcol

Basically, the same issue was raised in the case of Vitangcol. The Supreme Court once
again stressed that, it is not for a party to decide whether the first marriage is void, it is
properly determined by the court. Parties cannot declare nullity of marriage for themselves.
It is still the function of the Court, regardless if the marriage is presumed invalid for lack of
record in the Civil Registrar. Hence, the need for a judicial declaration prior to the second
marriage.

The Ruling in Mercado v. Tan

The basis for the need for judicial declaration in this case is Article 40 of the Family
Code. Under Article 40 of the Family Code, the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may
be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such
previous marriage void. But here, the final judgment declaring null and void accused
previous marriage came not before the celebration of the second marriage, but after, when
the case for bigamy against accused was already tried in court. What constitutes the crime of
bigamy is the act of any person who shall contract a second subsequent marriage before the
former marriage has been legally dissolved.

Also Section 29 of Act No. 3613 (Marriage Law), was used as basis to wit:
Illegal marriages. Any marriage subsequently contracted by any person during
the lifetime of the first spouse shall be illegal and void from its performance,
unless:
(a) The first marriage was annulled or dissolved;
(b) The first spouse had been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the
second marriage without the spouse present having news of the absentee
being alive, or the absentee being generally considered as dead and believed
to be so by the spouse present at the time of contracting such subsequent
marriage, the marriage as contracted being valid in either case until declared
null and void by a competent court. [Emphasis supplied]

As such, the need for a judicial declaration is not only provided in Article 349 of
the Revised Penal Code, but as well as in Section 40 of the Family Code and Section 29
of the Marriage Law. The two latter laws supplement the penal provision, hence,
further strengthen the requirement of a judicial declaration of marriage.

The Ruling People v Otduhan

What was emphasized by the Supreme Court is the period of acquiring judicial
declaration of marriage. What was required by the law is prior to the subsequent marriage,
it is clear and well-established.
 According to the Supreme Court the time of filing of the criminal complaint or
information is material only for determining prescription. It has been held in a number of
cases that a judicial declaration of nullity is required before a valid subsequent marriage can
be contracted.

The Ruling in Antone Case

At this moment the Supreme Court clarified the conflict in Morigo decision and Mercado
decision by reading Section 40 of Family Code. The specific provision, which reads:
ART. 40. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for
purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such
marriage void.
The Supreme Court settled the conflicting jurisprudence on the need for a judicial
declaration of nullity of the previous marriage. The Supreme Court concluded, in essence,
that under the Family Code a subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the first
marriage is immaterial in a bigamy case because, by then, the crime had already been
consummated. Otherwise stated, this Court declared that a person, who contracts a
subsequent marriage absent a prior judicial declaration of nullity of a previous one, is guilty
of bigamy.

The Cacho Case

The Cacho Case is different from all the previous case for it did not require a judicial
declaration of marriage as a requirement for subsequent marriage since the initial marriage
is void ab initio.