Case Summary (G.R. No. 11524)
Key Dates
First marriage: March 26, 1988 (Iglesia ni Cristo rites).
Alleged Muslim marriage: June 5, 2005 (asserted by petitioners but not proven).
Civil/ceremonial marriage to Jacqueline: June 18, 2005 (solemnized by a Municipal Trial Court judge).
Information filed: November 20, 2006.
RTC decision convicting petitioners: May 7, 2012.
Court of Appeals affirmation: April 24, 2015 (reconsideration denied September 17, 2015).
Supreme Court decision resolving the Rule 45 petition: November 15, 2021.
Constitutional basis applied: 1987 Constitution (decision date is 1990 or later).
Procedural History
An Information for bigamy (Art. 349, RPC) was filed against Francis and Jacqueline. They pleaded not guilty; trial followed. The Regional Trial Court (Branch 2, Tagum City) convicted them of bigamy (May 7, 2012). The Court of Appeals affirmed (April 24, 2015) and denied reconsideration (September 17, 2015). Petitioners filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court, which required respondent comment and ultimately denied the petition, affirming the lower courts with modification of the penalty.
Facts Found by the Trial Court and Admissions
- Francis and Nerrian were validly married under Iglesia ni Cristo rites on March 26, 1988 and had two children.
- In 2005 Francis left the family home and later cohabited with Jacqueline.
- Francis and Jacqueline admitted they married on June 18, 2005 while Francis’s marriage to Nerrian subsisted.
- Petitioners claimed conversion to Islam and an earlier Muslim wedding (June 5, 2005) but the courts found this claim unproven; the record indicates the conversion claim was unsubstantiated and that Jacqueline’s certificate of marriage listed her religion as Roman Catholic.
Issue Presented
Whether petitioners are guilty of bigamy when one party to a subsisting civil marriage converts to Islam and subsequently contracts another marriage, and whether conversion to Islam or marriage under Muslim rites exculpates them from criminal liability under Article 349, RPC.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Framework
- Constitution: 1987 Constitution provisions recognizing and protecting rights of indigenous cultural communities and religious minorities (Article II, Section 22; Article XIV, Section 17). These inform the legislative purpose of recognizing Muslim personal laws.
- Muslim Code (Presidential Decree No. 1083): Articles relevant to the dispute include Article 3 (conflict of provisions), Article 13 (application), Article 27 (conditions for subsequent marriages by a husband), Article 162 (formal requisites for subsequent marriage), Article 178 (conversion ratifying marriage), Article 179 (change of religion not extinguishing prior obligations), Article 180 (exemption from bigamy under Muslim Code), and Article 186 (effect on past acts).
- Civil law / Penal law: Article 349, Revised Penal Code (bigamy) and the Civil Code/Family Code governing marriages not solemnized under Muslim rites.
- Rule of law applied: When a conflict exists between the Muslim Code and laws of general application, the Muslim Code prevails as to Muslims, but the Muslim Code’s applicability is explicitly limited by its applicability clauses (e.g., Article 13) and cannot be construed to prejudice non-Muslims (Article 3).
Elements of Bigamy Under Article 349, RPC
The elements the prosecution must establish are: (1) a prior valid marriage; (2) the prior marriage has not been legally dissolved nor the spouse declared presumptively dead; (3) the accused contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and (4) the second marriage has the essential requisites for validity. Petitioners admitted elements (1)–(3), and their admissions established the elements of bigamy beyond reasonable doubt.
Court’s Analysis on Applicability of the Muslim Code
- The Muslim Code is intended to govern personal laws among Muslims and to codify Muslim personal laws; it applies where both parties are Muslims, or where the male is Muslim and the marriage is solemnized in accordance with Muslim law or the Muslim Code (Article 13).
- Article 180 exempts a person married in accordance with the Muslim Code from the Revised Penal Code provisions on bigamy, but that exemption presupposes that the Muslim Code governs the marriage at issue.
- Article 13(2) explicitly provides that in case of marriage between a Muslim and a non-Muslim, solemnized not in accordance with Muslim law or the Muslim Code, the Civil Code governs. Here, Nerrian was not a Muslim and the subsisting marriage between Francis and Nerrian is governed by civil law; therefore the Muslim Code does not displace the general law with respect to that subsisting marriage.
Conversion to Islam and Its Legal Effect
- Article 178 provides that conversion of non-Muslim spouses to Islam has the legal effect of ratifying their marriage as if performed under Muslim law, provided there is no legal impediment under Muslim law. Article 179 specifies that change of religion does not extinguish obligations or liabilities incurred prior to the change. Article 186 prescribes prospective application of the Muslim Code to past acts, preserving existing rights and liabilities except as otherwise provided.
- The Court found petitioners’ assertion of conversion and an earlier Muslim ceremony unproven. Even if conversion occurred, the Muslim Code’s protection (Article 180) does not apply where the prior civil marriage to a non-Muslim remains governed by the Civil Code and where the formal requisites of the Muslim Code for subsequent marriages were not observed.
Formal Requisites for Subsequent Marriage under the Muslim Code (Article 27 and Article 162)
- Substantive condition: A Muslim male may have another wife only in exceptional cases and only if he can deal with them with equal companionship and justice (Article 27).
- Formal/procedural requisites (Article 162): The husband must file written notice with the Clerk of Court of the Shari’a Circuit Court where his family resides; the Clerk must serve a copy on the wife or wives; if any objects, an Agama Arbitration Council must be constituted and, if the council fails to obtain consent, the Shari’a Circuit Court must decide whether to permit the marriage. The wife’s knowledge and opportunity to consent or object is therefore essential and cannot be waived.
- The Court emphasized that absent compliance with these formal requirements, a supposed subsequent marriage does not satisfy the exculpatory requirements of Article 180 and is subject to civil invalidity and criminal liability under Article 349.
Court’s Application to the Present Case
- Petitioners admitted the subsistence of the first marriage and the contracting of a later marriage. Their assertion of conversion and an earlier Muslim marriage was not proven; moreover, even if conversion had occurred, Article 13(2) and Article 162 required formal compliance and protection of the non-Muslim spouse’s rights.
- Petitioners failed to show compliance with the Muslim Code’s procedural requirements for contracting a valid subsequent marriage (notice to Shari’a court, service to prior wife, Agama Arbitration Council procedure, or court permission). Their failure to comply manifested an intent to circumvent the law and was consistent with the findings of fact by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, which the Supreme Court did not disturb.
Precedents and Distinguishing Authorities
- The Court relied on and sustained its prior doctrine as reflected in Nollora v. People, People v. Ong, and Sayson v. People, where convictions for bigamy were affirmed despite defenses invoking Article 180 or the parties’ asserted Muslim status. Those decisions involved essentia
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 11524)
Facts
- Francis D. Malaki, Sr. (Francis) and Nerrian Maningo-Malaki (Nerrian) were married on March 26, 1988 under the religious rites of Iglesia ni Cristo in Panabo City, Davao del Norte, and begot two children.
- In 2005 Francis left the family home for Tagum City to find work, later abandoning the family.
- Nerrian discovered Francis cohabiting with Jacqueline Mae A. Salanatin (Jacqueline) and learned that Francis and Jacqueline contracted marriage on June 18, 2005, solemnized by a Municipal Trial Court judge in New Corella, Davao del Norte.
- Francis and Jacqueline admitted they married while Francis’s marriage to Nerrian was still subsisting.
- Petitioners claimed they converted to Islam and were married under Muslim rites; however, the record notes that this claim is unsubstantiated and it appears that only Francis converted to Islam.
- Jacqueline’s Certificate of Marriage indicated her religion as Roman Catholic.
Procedural History
- An Information for bigamy was filed on November 20, 2006, charging Francis with contracting a second marriage despite his subsisting lawful marriage to Nerrian.
- On arraignment, petitioners pleaded not guilty and trial ensued.
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 2, Tagum City, issued a Decision on May 7, 2012, finding Francis and Jacqueline guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.
- Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration before the RTC was denied.
- Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA); the CA, in a Decision dated April 24, 2015, affirmed the RTC Decision in toto.
- A Motion for Reconsideration in the CA was denied by Resolution dated September 17, 2015.
- Petitioners filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court on November 23, 2015 after obtaining an extension of time.
Charges and Pleas
- Charge: Bigamy, under Article 349, for contracting a second marriage on or about June 18, 2005 while a previous lawful marriage to Nerrian subsisted.
- Pleas: Petitioners pleaded not guilty at arraignment; at trial they admitted the subsequent marriage but claimed exculpation by virtue of conversion to Islam and marriage under Muslim rites.
Evidence and Admissions
- Petitioners admitted the subsistence of Francis’s marriage to Nerrian and that Francis and Jacqueline subsequently married.
- Nerrian testified to the 1988 Iglesia ni Cristo marriage to Francis and the subsequent cohabitation and marriage between Francis and Jacqueline.
- Petitioners invoked documentary evidence: petitioner Francis’s Certificate of Conversion and their Certificate of Marriage (the Certificate of Marriage showing Jacqueline as Roman Catholic).
- The CA and RTC found all elements of bigamy present based on admissions and evidence.
Petitioners’ Contentions
- Petitioners assert they are Muslims and their marriage was governed by the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines (Muslim Code), evidenced by Francis’s Certificate of Conversion and their Certificate of Marriage.
- Petitioners contend they were married under Muslim rites on June 5, 2005 and that the June 18, 2005 civil ceremony was merely ceremonial.
- They argue that Article 180 and the Muslim Code exempt persons married in accordance with the Muslim Code from prosecution for bigamy, and that trying them for bigamy defeats the purposes of the Muslim Code and equal recognition of Muslim Filipinos.
- Petitioners cited Sulu Islamic Association of Masjid Lambayong v. Judge Malik and Zamoranos v. People to support their position.
Respondent’s Contentions
- Respondent argued petitioners raised factual issues not proper for a Rule 45 petition and that petitioners’ guilt was sufficiently proven because all elements of bigamy were present.
- Respondent noted Jacqueline’s Certificate of Marriage lists her religion as Roman Catholic, undermining the claim both were Muslims.
- Respondent asserted petitioners failed to comply with the Muslim Code’s requirements for subsequent marriages and thus cannot invoke its protections.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Francis and Jacqueline are guilty of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.
- Whether conversion to Islam and contracting a subsequent marriage under Muslim rites exempts a party to a subsisting civil marriage from criminal liability for bigamy.
- Whether the Muslim Code applies to the parties’ circumstances and, if so, whether the formal requisites for subsequent Muslim marriages were observed.
Relevant Statutes and Provisions (as cited)
- Revised Penal Code, Article 349 (Bigamy): criminalizes contracting a second or subsequent marriage before dissolution of the first or other conditions permitting remarriage.
- Muslim Code provisions:
- Article 2 (purposes: recognize legal system of Muslims, codify personal laws, provide administration).
- Article 3 (conflict of provisions: Code prevails over general laws but applies only to Muslims and not to the prejudice of a non-Muslim).
- Article 13 (application: applies where both parties are Muslims, or only the male is Muslim and marriage solemnized in accordance with Muslim law; Civil Code applies where marriage between Muslim and non-Muslim is not solemnized in accordance with Muslim law).
- Article 27 (by a husband: general rule that no Muslim male can have more than one wife unless he can treat them equally and only in exceptional cases).
- Article 162 (formal requisites for subsequent marriage: written notice to Shari’a Circuit Court clerk; service to wife; Agama Arbitration Council upon objection; court decision if council fails).
- Article 178 (effect of conversion to Islam on marriage: ratification of marriage as if performed under Muslim law if no impediment).
- Article 179 (change of religion does not extinguish prior obligations).
- Article 180 (law applicable: Revised Penal Code provisions on bigamy shall not apply to a person married in accordance with this Code or, before its effectivity, under Muslim law).
- Article 183 (penalties for failure to comply with Articles 85, 161, 162: arresto mayor or fine).
- Article 186 (effect of code on past acts: prospective application; acts prior governed by laws in force at time of execution).
- Article 187 (applicability clause: Civil Code, Rules of Court, and other laws apply suppletorily if not inconsistent).
- Articles 181, 182, 184, 185 (penal provisions relative to illegal solemnization; contracting marriage before expiration of ’idda; failure to report; neglect of duty by registrars).
- A