Title
Nollora, Jr. vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 191425
Decision Date
Sep 7, 2011
Nollora convicted of bigamy for contracting a second civil marriage while his first was valid, despite claiming Muslim conversion; courts upheld civil law over religious defense.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 191425)

Key Dates

  • First marriage: April 6, 1999 (Nollora–Jesusa Pinat)
  • Second marriage: December 8, 2001 (Nollora–Rowena Geraldino)
  • Information filed: August 24, 2004
  • Trial court decision convicting Nollora: November 19, 2007
  • Court of Appeals decision affirming trial court: September 30, 2009; resolution denying reconsideration: February 23, 2010
  • Supreme Court resolution: G.R. No. 191425 (decision promulgated September 7, 2011) — constitutional basis: 1987 Philippine Constitution

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

  • Constitutional basis: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision rendered post‑1990).
  • Penal statute: Article 349, Revised Penal Code (bigamy).
  • Civil/family law: Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No. 209), including Article 2 (essential requisites of marriage) and Article 41 (nullity in case of subsisting prior marriage under prescribed circumstances).
  • Muslim personal law: Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 1083), including Articles 13(2), 14–20, 27, 162 and Article 180 (disapplication of Revised Penal Code bigamy provisions to marriages validly contracted under Muslim law).
  • Rules of procedure: Rule 45, Rules of Court (venue for petition for review).

Issues Presented

  • Whether petitioner Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.

Facts (stipulated and adduced at trial)

  • The validity of the first marriage between Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. and Jesusa Pinat Nollora (April 6, 1999) and the fact of the second marriage between Nollora and Rowena P. Geraldino (December 8, 2001) were stipulated at pre-trial.
  • The private complainant Jesusa Pinat testified she learned of the second marriage in November 2003 after obtaining a civil-status certification from the National Statistics Office and confronted Geraldino thereafter. She claimed emotional and economic harm.
  • Prosecution witnesses corroborated the private complainant’s knowledge and confrontation with Geraldino.
  • Nollora admitted both marriages but claimed he had converted to Islam in January 1992 and asserted that under Muslim law polygamy is permitted. He presented certificates and a pledge of conversion.
  • Defense evidence included testimony of the imam/convert authority (Hadji Abdul Qasar MadueAo) attesting to conversion and describing Muslim rules on polygamy and procedural requirements (notification to Shari’a court, arbitration). Geraldino maintained she did not know of the first marriage prior to the case and portrayed herself as a victim.

Trial Court Findings

  • The trial court found all elements of bigamy satisfied as to Nollora: legal prior marriage, subsistence of that marriage at the time of a subsequent marriage, and a valid second marriage in form but lacking capacity due to the prior marriage.
  • The court recognized exceptions where the Code of Muslim Personal Laws would apply but concluded the second marriage was not contracted in accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of Muslim personal law (e.g., notification to Shari’a court and requisite Shari’a procedures). The trial court emphasized that Muslim allowance for multiple wives is subject to strict conditions and court/Arbitration procedures.
  • The trial court convicted Nollora of bigamy and sentenced him to an indeterminate term (minimum: 2 years, 4 months, 1 day prision correccional; maximum: 8 years, 1 day prision mayor) with accessory penalties. Rowena P. Geraldino was acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Court of Appeals Ruling

  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. It rejected Nollora’s defense that his second marriage was lawful under the Qur’an and Muslim practice because both marriages were not solemnized in accordance with the Code of Muslim Personal Laws; accordingly, the Family Code (civil law) applies.
  • The appellate court held that invocation of religious belief does not relieve a person from complying with statutory procedures and does not prevent the State from protecting the welfare of non‑Muslim spouses.
  • The Court of Appeals denied reconsideration; the CA’s decision and resolution were then brought to the Supreme Court by petition for review.

Supreme Court Ruling and Reasoning

  • The Supreme Court affirmed both lower courts. It applied Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code and reiterated the elements of bigamy: (1) prior valid marriage, (2) that marriage not legally dissolved or presumed dead, (3) contracting a second marriage, and (4) the subsequent marriage had essential requisites for validity (except for incapacity due to the prior marriage). All elements were found satisfied in this case.
  • The Court stressed that even if petitioner had genuinely converted to Islam, his marriages were not conducted in accordance with the Code of Muslim Personal Laws. Article 13(2) of that Code provides that when a marriage between a Muslim and a non‑Muslim is not solemnized in accordance with Muslim law, the Family Code applies. Therefore, petitioner could not claim exemption from criminal liability under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws.
  • The Court noted indicia of concealment and bad faith: petitioner declared “single” on the second marriage contract and listed religion inconsistently; he admitted keeping his conversion secret and signing documents indicating Catholic religion to avoid societal disapproval. Such misrepresentations and omissions were relevant to establishing criminal intent and to reject attempts to evade liability.
  • The Court emphasized that a defendant cannot, for the purpose of escaping criminal liability for bigamy, attack the validity of the subsequent marriage if that would be a self-serving means to avoid responsibility; void or defective marriages may nevertheless produce legal consequences, including criminal liability for bigamy (citing Tenebro v. Court of Appeals). Allowing otherwise would permit deliberate evasion of penal consequences by purposefully ensuring subsequent marriages are defective.

Legal Principles Applied

  • Elements of bigamy were applied strictly: proof beyond reasonable doubt that a
...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms