G.R. No. 145226 - Morigo y Cacho vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 145226)

Factual Background

Petitioner and Lucia Barrete were former boardmates and later resumed a courtship by correspondence in the 1980s. The parties were alleged to have been married on August 30, 1990 at the Iglesia de Filipina Nacional in Pilar, Bohol. Lucia returned to Canada on September 8, 1990 and later obtained a divorce from an Ontario court, granted January 17, 1992 and effective February 17, 1992. Petitioner contracted a second marriage with Maria Jececha Limbago on October 4, 1992 in Tagbilaran City. Petitioner thereafter filed Civil Case No. 6020 in the RTC of Bohol seeking a judicial declaration of nullity of his marriage to Lucia on the ground that no marriage ceremony was actually performed.

Trial Court Proceedings

Petitioner was charged with bigamy in an information filed October 19, 1993. He pleaded not guilty at arraignment and trial followed. On August 5, 1996, the RTC of Bohol found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy and sentenced him to imprisonment ranging from seven months of prision correccional to six years and one day of prision mayor. The trial court rejected petitioner's contention that the first marriage was void ab initio for want of a valid marriage ceremony, citing precedent that the absence of a valid ceremony is not a defense in a bigamy prosecution unless a judicial declaration of nullity had first been obtained. The RTC also held that the Canadian divorce was not entitled to recognition in the Philippines, and it rejected petitioner's claim of good faith on the ground that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 20700. While that appeal was pending, the RTC rendered judgment in Civil Case No. 6020 on October 23, 1997, declaring the marriage between petitioner and Lucia void ab initio because no solemnizing officer had performed a marriage ceremony. No appeal was taken from that civil judgment and it became final. On October 21, 1999, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC criminal conviction. The appellate court held that Article 349 punishes the act of contracting a second marriage before the first marriage has been dissolved, and that an assertion that the first marriage was void from the beginning is not a valid defense in a bigamy prosecution unless a judicial declaration of nullity had been obtained prior to the second marriage. The Court of Appeals further rejected recognition of the Canadian divorce under Articles 15 and 17 of the Civil Code. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing among other points that his mistake on a difficult question of law entitled him to good faith, but the Court of Appeals denied the motion on September 25, 2000. That denial was by a split vote, and a dissenting member observed that the final declaration that the first marriage was void ab initio meant that there was, in law, no first marriage to support a bigamy conviction.

Issues Presented

The petition to the Supreme Court framed three principal issues: (A) whether the Court of Appeals erred in failing to apply the rule that criminal intent is an indispensable requisite in crimes under the Revised Penal Code and in failing to appreciate petitioner's lack of criminal intent when he contracted the second marriage; (B) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the ruling in People v. Bitdu is applicable to this case; and (C) whether the Court of Appeals erred in failing to apply the rule that every circumstance favoring the innocence of the accused must be taken into account.

Parties' Contentions

Petitioner emphasized his alleged good faith reliance upon the Canadian divorce and argued that the second marriage was contracted openly and publicly, which negated an intent to commit bigamy. He urged that lack of criminal intent defeats a prosecution for a crime mala in se. The Office of the Solicitor General defended the conviction and argued that good faith was an insufficient excuse. The OSG invoked Marbella‑Bobis v. Bobis and Art. 40, Family Code, to stress that a judicial declaration of nullity is required before remarriage. The OSG also pointed to petitioner's own filing of Civil Case No. 6020 as inconsistent with a claim that he relied in good faith on the foreign divorce.

Legal Analysis of the Elements of Bigamy

The Court reiterated the elements of bigamy as stated in Marbella‑Bobis v. Bobis: (1) the offender has been legally married; (2) the first marriage has not been legally dissolved or the absent spouse not judicially declared presumptively dead; (3) the offender contracts a subsequent marriage; and (4) the subsequent marriage would have been valid but for the existence of the first. The Supreme Court examined Civil Case No. 6020 in which the RTC found that no marriage ceremony was performed by a solemnizing officer and that petitioner and Lucia merely signed the marriage contract. The RTC thus declared the marriage void ab initio pursuant to Arts. 3 and 4, Family Code. The civil judgment became final as no appeal was taken.

Court's Reasoning and Distinction from Precedent

The Supreme Court reasoned that the first element of bigamy—being legally married—was not present because, as declared in Civil Case No. 6020, petitioner and Lucia were never legally married. The Court explained that a declaration of nullity that a marriage is void ab initio retroacts to the date of the alleged marriage. The Court distinguished Mercado v. Tan, where the first union had been solemnized and therefore appeared to have transpired notwithstanding its later nullification. By contrast, in the present case no solemnizing officer performed any ceremony and the mere private signing of a marriage contract bore no resemblance to a valid marriage that would require a judicial annulment. The Supreme Court emphasized that penal statutes must be liberally construed in favor

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 145226)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Lucio Morigo y Cacho was the petitioner and People of the Philippines was the respondent in the criminal prosecution for bigamy.
The Regional Trial Court of Bohol, Branch 4, convicted petitioner in Criminal Case No. 8688 and imposed imprisonment ranging from seven months of prision correccional to six years and one day of prision mayor.
The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR No. 20700, affirmed the RTC conviction by decision dated October 21, 1999, and denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration by resolution dated September 25, 2000.
While the criminal appeal was pending, the RTC, in Civil Case No. 6020, rendered a judgment declaring petitioner's marriage to Lucia Barrete void ab initio, and that judgment became final and executory because no appeal was taken.
The Supreme Court entertained a petition for review on certiorari seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision and the denial of reconsideration.

Key Factual Allegations

Petitioner and Lucia Barrete were former boardmates who renewed contact in the mid-1980s and agreed to marry before Lucia returned to Canada for work.
Petitioner and Lucia purportedly were married on August 30, 1990 at the Iglesia de Filipina Nacional at Catagdaan, Pilar, Bohol, according to the factual findings at trial.
Lucia obtained a divorce decree from the Ontario Court (General Division) after filing a petition on August 19, 1991, which was granted on January 17, 1992 and made effective on February 17, 1992.
Petitioner contracted a subsequent marriage with Maria Jececha Limbago on October 4, 1992 at the Virgen sa Barangay Parish, Tagbilaran City, Bohol.
Petitioner filed Civil Case No. 6020 seeking judicial declaration of nullity of his marriage with Lucia on September 21, 1993, and the bigamy Information was filed on October 19, 1993.

Charges and Trial Ruling

The Information charged petitioner under Art. 349 of the Revised Penal Code for contracting a second marriage while the first marriage remained undissolved.
The RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy and imposed the prescribed term of imprisonment.
The RTC rejected petitioner's claim that the first marriage was null because the absence of a valid marriage ceremony was not a defense to bigamy, citing Domingo v. Court of Appeals.
The RTC held that the Canadian divorce was not entitled to recognition in the Philippines under the rule in Ramirez v. Gmur and related provisions on public policy.
The RTC also rejected petitioner's plea of good faith and lack of criminal intent, citing the presumption that everyone knows the law as articulated in People v. Bitdu.

Appellate Proceedings

The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on the ground that the offense punished by Art. 349 is the act of contracting a subsequent marriage before dissolution of the first, and that a subsequent judicial declaration of nullity does not exculpate the earlier act.
The Court of Appeals further held that the foreign divorce obtained by Lucia could not be recognized in the Philippines under Art. 15 and Art. 17 of the Civil Code.
Petitioner filed for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals, which denied the motion by a split vote with a dissent noting that the final judgment in Ci