Case Summary (G.R. No. 247410)
Petitioner
Salvador S. Abunado
Respondent
People of the Philippines
Key Dates
• September 18, 1967 – First marriage of Salvador to Narcisa at Manila City Hall
• January 10, 1989 – Second marriage of Salvador to Zenaida in San Mateo, Rizal
• January 19, 1995 – Salvador’s petition for annulment against Narcisa filed
• May 18, 1995 – Narcisa’s complaint for bigamy filed
• May 18, 2001 – RTC conviction for bigamy rendered
• March 30, 2004 – Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14(2) – Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation
• Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 110, Sec. 6 – Sufficiency of information
• Revised Penal Code, Art. 349 – Bigamy; Art. 13(2) – Mitigating circumstance (age)
• Indeterminate Sentence Law – Framework for minimum and maximum terms
Facts
- Salvador first married Narcisa on September 18, 1967.
- Narcisa left for Japan in 1988; returned in 1992 to discover Salvador cohabiting with Fe Corazon Plato.
- Salvador admitted a prior 1955 marriage to Zenaida in Concepcion, Iloilo, but proof was lacking; they remarried on January 10, 1989 to regularize documentation.
- Salvador filed for annulment of his marriage to Narcisa on January 19, 1995.
- Narcisa filed a bigamy complaint on May 18, 1995, alleging Salvador contracted second marriage while first subsisted.
Procedural History
• RTC, Branch 77, San Mateo, Rizal (Crim. Case No. 2803) convicted Salvador of bigamy on May 18, 2001, sentencing him to six years and one day to eight years and one day of imprisonment; Zenaida acquitted for insufficient evidence.
• Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 26135) affirmed with modification, recognizing petitioner’s age (76) as mitigating and, under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, imposed an indeterminate term of two years, four months and one day of prision correccional as minimum to six years and one day of prision mayor as maximum.
• Petition for review on certiorari filed before the Supreme Court challenging (1) the information’s alleged defect, (2) condonation, (3) prejudicial question doctrine, and (4) penalty.
Issues
- Whether the information was defective for stating the crime occurred in January 1995 instead of January 1989
- Whether condonation by Narcisa absolved Salvador of criminal liability
- Whether the pendency of Salvador’s annulment petition constituted a prejudicial question requiring suspension of the bigamy prosecution
- Whether the penalty imposed by the CA was proper under applicable law
Court’s Analysis
• Information Defect: The typographical error “January 1995” did not prejudice the accused, as the pleading clearly alleged the subsequent marriage on January 10, 1989. No timely objection was made at trial; evidence cured any defect.
• Condonation: Even if Narcisa had condoned the second marriage, bigamy is a public offense prosecutable by the State; pardon by the offended party does not extinguish criminal action.
• Prejudicial Question: To qualify, a civil question must be distinct yet so connected that its resolution determines guilt or innocence. The annulment petition filed in 1995, judicially resolved only in 1999, did not suspend the crime already consummated in 1989. All
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 247410)
Facts
- On September 18, 1967, Salvador S. Abunado married Narcisa Arceno at Manila City Hall before Rev. Pedro Tiangco.
- In 1988, Narcisa left for Japan to work; she returned in 1992 and discovered Salvador’s extra-marital affair and cohabitation with Fe Corazon Plato in Quezon City.
- Salvador had allegedly first married Zenaida Biaas on December 24, 1955 before a municipal trial court judge in Concepcion, Iloilo, but no evidence of that marriage existed; they separated in 1966.
- At the request of their son (for military commission requirements), Salvador and Zenaida remarried on January 10, 1989 before Judge Lilian Dinulos Panontongan in San Mateo, Rizal.
- On January 19, 1995, Salvador filed an annulment case against Narcisa; on May 18, 1995, Narcisa filed a bigamy complaint against Salvador and Zenaida.
Procedural History
- On May 18, 2001, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 77, San Mateo, Rizal (Criminal Case No. 2803) convicted Salvador of bigamy and sentenced him to six years and one day to eight years and one day of imprisonment; Zenaida was acquitted for insufficiency of evidence.
- On appeal (CA-G.R. No. 26135), the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law to impose two years, four months and one day of prision correccional (minimum) to six years and one day of prision mayor (maximum).
- Salvador and Zenaida filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court seeking to reverse the Court of Appeals decision.
Issues Presented
- Whether the Information was defective for misstating the date of the second marriage as January 1995 inst