Title
Abunado vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 159218
Decision Date
Mar 30, 2004
Salvador married twice; second marriage while first was valid. Convicted of bigamy despite annulment case and Narcisa's alleged consent. Penalty modified due to age.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 159218)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background of the Parties and Marriages
    • Salvador S. Abunado married Narcisa Arceno on September 18, 1967 at Manila City Hall.
    • Narcisa left for Japan in 1988 and returned in 1992 to find Salvador cohabiting with Fe Corazon Plato.
    • Salvador had allegedly first married Zenaida Biñas in 1955 (no proof found) and they separated in 1966.
    • On January 10, 1989, Salvador and Zenaida remarried before Judge Lilian Dinulos Panontongan in San Mateo, Rizal.
  • Judicial and Criminal Proceedings
    • Salvador filed an annulment case against Narcisa on January 19, 1995.
    • Narcisa filed a bigamy complaint on May 18, 1995 accusing Salvador and Zenaida.
    • On May 18, 2001, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 77, San Mateo, Rizal, convicted Salvador of bigamy (Prision Mayor, 6 yrs. & 1 day to 8 yrs. & 1 day) and acquitted Zenaida for insufficiency of evidence.
    • The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification, imposing an indeterminate sentence of 2 years, 4 months & 1 day of prision correccional (minimum) to 6 years & 1 day of prision mayor (maximum), citing Salvador’s age (76) as mitigating.
    • Salvador filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court to review the CA decision.

Issues:

  • Information Defect
    • Whether the Information was defective for alleging the bigamous marriage date as January 1995 instead of January 1989.
  • Condonation by Narcisa
    • Whether Narcisa’s alleged consent or condonation of the second marriage absolves Salvador of criminal liability.
  • Prejudicial Question Doctrine
    • Whether Salvador’s pending annulment case constituted a prejudicial question that should have suspended the bigamy proceedings.
  • Penalty Imposition
    • Whether the indeterminate penalty imposed by the CA was proper under the Revised Penal Code and the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.