Title
Morigo y Cacho vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 145226
Decision Date
Feb 6, 2004
Lucio Morigo y Cacho was acquitted of bigamy after his first marriage was declared void ab initio due to no marriage ceremony, nullifying the charge.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 145226)

Key Dates

  • 1974–1978: Morigo and Barrete board together in Tagbilaran.
  • August 30, 1990: Alleged marriage of Morigo and Barrete at Pilar, Bohol.
  • January 17, 1992 (effective February 17): Divorce granted by Ontario Court.
  • October 4, 1992: Marriage of Morigo and Limbago in Tagbilaran.
  • August 5, 1996: RTC conviction for bigamy.
  • October 21, 1999: Court of Appeals affirms conviction.
  • September 25, 2000: CA denies reconsideration.
  • February 6, 2004: Supreme Court decision.

Procedural History

  1. RTC finds Morigo guilty of bigamy, sentences him to 7 months to 6 years+1 day imprisonment.
  2. CA affirms RTC judgment and denies reconsideration.
  3. Petitioner elevates matter by petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented

A. Whether criminal intent (mens rea) is indispensable in bigamy under the Revised Penal Code, and whether petitioner’s lack of intent exempts him.
B. Whether the doctrine in People v. Bitdu—that ignorance of law is no excuse—applies here.
C. Whether all circumstances favoring the accused’s innocence must be considered.

Applicable Law

  • Article 349, Revised Penal Code (Bigamy): Requires (1) a valid first marriage, (2) its non-dissolution, (3) a subsequent marriage, and (4) validity of the second but for existence of the first.
  • Family Code Articles 3 and 4: Formal requisites and voidability/voidness of marriage.
  • Family Code Article 40: Judicial declaration of nullity as prerequisite to remarriage.
  • Civil Code Articles 15 and 17: Recognition of foreign judgments and public policy.

Factual Findings

  • No valid ceremony solemnized the 1990 union between Morigo and Barrete; they only signed a contract without a licensed officer or witnesses.
  • Ontario divorce decree secured by Barrete in 1992 is not recognized under Philippine law.
  • Morigo contracted a second marriage in 1992 with Limbago.
  • In 1997, RTC Branch 1 declared the 1990 union void ab initio for lack of formal requisites. This judgment became final.

Court’s Analysis

  1. Elements of Bigamy: The Supreme Court reiterated that a legally binding first marriage is essential.
  2. Void ab initio: The final judgment in Civil Case No. 6020 invalidated the first union from its inception; legally, Morigo was never married to Barrete.
  3. Retroactivity: The nullity decision retroacted to August 1990, erasing any first marriage. Without a valid first marriage, element one of bigamy fails.
  4. Good Faith and Criminal Intent: Because the crime was not consummated (no first marr

...continue reading

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