Title
Bagaporo vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 211829
Decision Date
Jan 30, 2019
Jacinto Bagaporo convicted of bigamy for contracting a second marriage while legally married; appeal dismissed due to counsel's alleged negligence, upheld by SC.
bigamy case
dismissal
relief
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 211829)

Facts:

  • Basic Background of the Case
    • Petitioner Jacinto Bagaporo was indicted for the crime of bigamy.
    • The indictment alleged that on or about September 11, 1991, in Calauag, Quezon, Bagaporo, while still legally married to Dennia Dumlao (whose marriage was solemnized on March 10, 1986), contracted a second marriage with Milagros Lumas without the prior marriage having been legally dissolved or annulled.
    • The offense charged was clearly against the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, specifically Article 349, which penalizes contracting a second marriage under such circumstances.
  • Trial Court Proceedings
    • The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 4789-C before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calauag, Quezon, Branch 63.
    • Trial proceedings culminated in a Decision dated October 1, 2012, where the RTC found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy.
    • The petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment:
      • Minimum term of two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional.
      • Maximum term of eight years and one day of prision mayor.
      • Accessory penalties were also imposed.
  • Post-Trial Developments and Counsel Confusion
    • After the conviction, the petitioner appealed his case.
    • Allegations arose that his then counsel of record, Atty. Angelo Cerdon, and his subsequent consultation with a new lawyer, Atty. Berteni Cataluna Causing, led to confusion:
      • In January 2013, petitioner, on the advice of Atty. Causing, was said to have filed a Motion to Withdraw Notice of Appeal and a Motion for Reconsideration before the RTC.
      • Copies of these motions were allegedly furnished to Atty. Cerdon when petitioner visited his office on February 25, 2013.
      • Despite these filings and communications, Atty. Cerdon apparently remained the counsel of record for the appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA).
    • The CA, proceeding with the appeal, issued a notice on March 18, 2013 for the submission of an appeal brief, which was received by Atty. Cerdon on April 8, 2013.
    • Due to failure to file the required appellant’s brief, the CA dismissed the appeal on July 31, 2013, with the dismissal becoming final on August 31, 2013.
  • Filing of Petitions for Relief and Subsequent Motions
    • In response to the dismissal of his appeal, the petitioner filed a "Petition for Relief from Resolution or Judgment in Case Entry was Already Ordered" on December 26, 2013, alleging gross negligence on the part of Atty. Cerdon.
    • The petition, treated as one under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, was denied by the CA in its January 29, 2014 Resolution.
    • A subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was filed on February 17, 2014, which was also dismissed on March 24, 2014.
    • The petitioner then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari, with an added application for a temporary restraining order, seeking to reopen his lost appeal and reassert the merits of his case.
  • Contentions Raised by the Petitioner
    • The petitioner argued that:
      • The CA erred by treating his petition as one filed under Rule 38, which, he contends, is inapplicable in his scenario.
      • His subsequent attempt to withdraw the appeal in favor of a motion for reconsideration before the RTC should have been recognized.
      • There exists a distinct remedy for “gross negligence of counsel” established by jurisprudence, separate from the provisions of Rule 38.
      • The elements of the crime of bigamy were not proven, contending that his conviction was based on facts not stated in the Information.
      • Article 349’s last clause, in requiring a judicial declaration of the presumptive death of an absent spouse before a subsequent marriage, violates the equal protection and due process clauses.

Issues:

  • Procedural and Jurisdictional Issues
    • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in treating the petitioner’s relief petition as one under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, given that the petition sought to reopen a final resolution dismissing the appeal.
    • Whether the petitioner’s attempt to withdraw his appeal in favor of a motion for reconsideration before the RTC was procedurally proper and should have been entertained by the CA.
  • Substantive and Constitutional Issues
    • Whether the alleged gross negligence of counsel (Atty. Cerdon) constitutes sufficient ground to reopen the finality of a dismissed appeal.
    • Whether the petitioner’s contention that Article 349’s requirement for a judicial declaration of an absent spouse’s presumptive death violates the equal protection clause and the due process clause is tenable.
    • Whether the elements of bigamy were indeed proven beyond reasonable doubt given the facts stated in the Information.
  • Questions Regarding Counsel Representation
    • Whether the petitioner’s conflicting indications regarding the continued representation by Atty. Cerdon and the engagement of Atty. Causing amount to forum shopping.
    • Whether the petitioner’s failure to secure a formal withdrawal or written confirmation from his prior counsel undermines his claim of being adversely affected by counsel negligence.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms