Case Digest (G.R. No. 221075)
Facts:
Francis D. Malaki and Jacqueline Mae A. Salanatin-Malaki, G.R. No. 221075, November 15, 2021, promulgated September 16, 2024, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners Francis D. Malaki, Sr. (Francis) and Jacqueline Mae A. Salanatin (Jacqueline) sought review of the Court of Appeals' April 24, 2015 Decision and September 17, 2015 Resolution affirming the Regional Trial Court (Branch 2, Tagum City) May 7, 2012 Decision that convicted them of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code; the case was brought to the Court by a petition for review under Rule 45.The Information, filed November 20, 2006, charged that Francis, having been previously married to Nerrian Maningo‑Malaki on March 26, 1988 (solemnized under Iglesia ni Cristo rites), and without that marriage having been dissolved, contracted a second marriage with Jacqueline on June 18, 2005. At arraignment petitioners pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to trial. Nerrian testified that she and Francis begot two children and that Francis left the family home to seek work in Tagum City, later cohabiting with Jacqueline.
Francis and Jacqueline admitted they married while the first marriage subsisted but claimed they had converted to Islam and were thus married under Muslim rites (petitioners asserted a Muslim wedding on June 5, 2005, and presented a Certificate of Conversion and a Certificate of Marriage). The RTC found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt (May 7, 2012 Decision) and sentenced them under the Indeterminate Sentence Law; their motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed (April 24, 2015 Decision) and denied reconsideration (September 17, 2015 Resolution).
Petitioners filed a Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court (petition filed November 23, 2015 after extension). They argued the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines (Muslim Code) applied and that conversion to Islam and a marriage under Muslim rites (or the Muslim Code) exempts them from criminal liability for bigamy; they cited Sulu Islamic Association of Masjid Lambayong v. Judge Malik and Zamoranos v. People. The People (respondent) filed a comment denying that petitioners raised purely legal questions and asserting the elements of bigamy were established; respondent also pointed out that Jacqueline’s ma...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioners present questions of fact not cognizable under a Rule 45 petition so as to warrant dismissal on procedural grounds?
- Whether conversion to Islam and contracting a subsequent marriage under the Muslim Code exempts petitioners from criminal liability for bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, and, relatedly, whether the Muslim Code’s provisions (including Article 180 and the formal requirements o...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)