Case Summary (G.R. No. 150758)
Applicable Constitution and Statutory Framework
Because the decision was rendered after 1990, the 1987 Philippine Constitution supplies the constitutional framework for adjudication. Relevant statutory and doctrinal authorities invoked in the decision include Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code (bigamy), Family Code provisions (notably Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 36, 40, 41, and 54), Rule 130 Section 7 of the Rules of Court regarding public documents, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law for penalty execution.
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Material dates: alleged first marriage to Villareyes on November 10, 1986; second marriage to Ancajas on April 10, 1990; third marriage to Villegas on January 25, 1993. Ancajas filed a complaint for bigamy; a criminal information was filed and tried in the RTC which convicted petitioner; the Court of Appeals affirmed; petitioner sought review in the Supreme Court, which resolved the legal issues on appeal.
Facts Established at Trial
Tenebro and Ancajas were married April 10, 1990 and cohabited until late 1991 when Tenebro revealed a prior union with Villareyes and left to cohabit with her. Ancajas later learned of a third marriage (1993). Ancajas obtained from Villareyes a handwritten letter confirming the marital relationship between Villareyes and Tenebro. A photocopy of a marriage contract between Tenebro and Villareyes dated November 10, 1986 was produced.
Criminal Information and Plea
The Information charged that on April 10, 1990 Tenebro, having been previously united in lawful marriage with Hilda Villareyes and without legal dissolution of that marriage, contracted a second marriage with Leticia Ancajas. Petitioner pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial.
Trial Evidence and Defense Theory
Prosecution evidence included a certified copy of the marriage contract between Tenebro and Villareyes and Villareyes’s handwritten letter to Ancajas confirming the marriage. Petitioner admitted cohabitation and children with Villareyes but denied a valid marriage ceremony and testified that he signed a marriage contract only to secure an allotment for Villareyes. He presented certifications from the National Statistics Office and the City Civil Registry of Manila indicating no record of that 1986 marriage; those certifications, however, were dated after the 1990 marriage to Ancajas.
Trial Court and Court of Appeals Dispositions
The Regional Trial Court found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy under Article 349, imposing a prison term. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC judgment. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, resulting in the petition for review to the Supreme Court.
Central Legal Question Presented
The pivotal legal issue before the Court was whether a subsequent judicial declaration that a second marriage is void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity operates retroactively, for purposes of criminal law, so as to negate criminal liability for bigamy when the second marriage was contracted during the subsistence of a valid first marriage.
Supreme Court Holding
The en banc Court held that a subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of a second or subsequent marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity does not retroact for purposes of the State’s penal laws. Consequently, a person who contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid first marriage is criminally liable for bigamy even if the second marriage is later judicially declared void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity.
Reasoning on the Existence of the First Marriage
The Court found sufficient evidence to establish the existence of the first marriage to Villareyes. The certified copy of the marriage contract—a public document—was admissible under Rule 130 Section 7 and entitled to full faith and credence. The certifications presented by the defense attest only to absence of a record in particular registries and do not prove the nonexistence of a marriage ceremony or the invalidity of the marriage. There was no credible evidence that the 1986 union lacked legal requisites, and the testimonial and documentary record (including Villareyes’s letter and Ancajas’s testimony) supported the conclusion that the first marriage had all requisites for validity.
Application of the Elements of Bigamy
The Court reiterated the elements of bigamy under Article 349: (1) existence of a prior legal marriage; (2) that prior marriage had not been legally dissolved; (3) contracting a second or subsequent marriage; and (4) the second marriage has all essential requisites for validity (were it not for the subsisting first marriage). The Court concluded on the facts that the first and second elements were established and that the second marriage to Ancajas satisfied essential and formal requisites (age, consent, license, solemnization, and presence of witnesses), satisfying the third and fourth elements at the time of celebration.
Legal Analysis on Psychological Incapacity and Retroactivity
The Court distinguished between the civil effects of a judicial declaration of nullity for psychological incapacity and penal consequences. While a declaration of nullity under Article 36 retroacts to the date of celebration to dissolve the marital vinculum between spouses for civil purposes (and the Family Code preserves certain legal effects such as legitimacy of children), that retroactive civil nullity does not erase the criminal act already consummated when the second marriage was celebrated during the subsistence of the first. Article 349 penalizes the act of contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of a valid prior marriage; once the second marriage was celebrated in those circumstances, the crime was consummated irrespective of subsequent civil nullity on grounds unrelated to the elements of marriage formation.
Policy and Protective Rationales
The Court emphasized the protective purpose of penalizing bigamy—to safeguard the permanence and stability of marriage and to deter deliberate circumvention of marital obligations. Allowing subsequent civil nullity on grounds like psychological incapacity to negate criminal liability would undermine the penal protection of the marital institution and could permit deliberate schemes to evade criminal responsibility.
Sentencing and Application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law
Under Article 349 as amended, the penalty is prision mayor (six years and one day to twelve years). Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and recognizing neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ imposition of an indeterminate sentence with a minimum term in prision correccional (four years and two months) and a maximum in prision mayor (eight years and one day).
Separate Opinion of Justice Vitug (Concurring in Result)
Justice Vitug filed a separate opinion emphasizing that marriages void unde
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 150758)
Case Caption and Court
- En Banc decision reported at 467 Phil. 723, G.R. No. 150758, February 18, 2004.
- Title as given: Veronico Tenebro, Petitioner, vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Respondent.
- Opinion of the Court by Justice Ynares‑Santiago.
- Separate opinion by Justice Vitug.
- Dissenting opinions by Justices Carpio and Callejo, Sr., with notations on other justices joining or referring to separate/dissenting opinions as indicated in the source.
Procedural Posture
- Private complainant: Leticia Ancajas.
- Criminal Information filed and docketed as Criminal Case No. 013095‑L for the crime of bigamy (Article 349, Revised Penal Code).
- Arraignment: petitioner pleaded "not guilty."
- Trial court: Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lapu‑lapu City, Branch 54 — rendered judgment finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing him (decision penned by Judge Rumoldo F. Fernandez).
- Court of Appeals: affirmed the trial court decision; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration denied.
- Supreme Court: petition for review on certiorari filed by Veronico Tenebro challenging conviction and raising specified assignments of error; petition DENIED by the Court en banc.
Facts (as pleaded and adduced at trial)
- Veronico Tenebro allegedly married Hilda B. Villareyes on November 10, 1986 (manually supported by a marriage contract copy).
- Tenebro contracted marriage with Leticia Ancajas on April 10, 1990, solemnized by Judge Alfredo B. Perez, Jr., City Trial Court of Lapu‑lapu City.
- Tenebro and Ancajas cohabited continuously until late 1991, when Tenebro informed Ancajas of a prior marriage to Hilda Villareyes and left to cohabit with Villareyes.
- A later marriage was contracted by Tenebro on January 25, 1993, with Nilda Villegas before Judge German Lee, Jr., RTC Cebu City, Branch 15.
- Ancajas verified the Villareyes marriage; Villareyes wrote a handwritten letter (dated July 12, 1994) confirming that Tenebro was her husband.
- Ancajas filed the bigamy complaint against Tenebro.
Documentary and Testimonial Evidence Presented
- Prosecution documentary evidence:
- Certified copy of marriage contract between Tenebro and Hilda B. Villareyes dated November 10, 1986, solemnized at Manila City Hall before Rev. Julieto Torres and certified by the Office of the Civil Registrar of Manila (Record, p. 85).
- Handwritten letter from Villareyes to Ancajas dated July 12, 1994 confirming legal marriage (Record, p. 84).
- Defense documentary evidence:
- Certification from the National Statistics Office dated October 7, 1995, stating the issuing office has no record of a marriage between Tenebro and Villareyes on November 10, 1986 (Record, p. 148).
- Certification from the City Civil Registry of Manila dated February 3, 1997, likewise indicating no record of such marriage (Record, p. 149).
- Testimonial evidence:
- Petitioner admitted cohabitation with Villareyes from 1984–1988 and acknowledged fathering two children with her, but denied a valid marriage ceremony; claimed he signed a marriage contract merely for Villareyes to obtain an allotment from his workplace as a seaman.
- Petitioner testified he had his brother verify civil records in Manila but found no record (certifications later produced).
- Ancajas testified petitioner informed her of the existence of the first marriage.
Information Filed (text and legal averments)
- Information charged: that on April 10, 1990 in Lapu‑lapu City, the accused, having been previously united in lawful marriage with Hilda Villareyes, and without the first marriage having been legally dissolved, did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously contract a second marriage with Leticia Ancajas, which second marriage had all the essential requisites for validity were it not for the subsisting first marriage — contrary to law. (Record, pp. 1–2.)
Trial Court Decision and Sentence
- RTC of Lapu‑lapu City, Branch 54 convicted Tenebro of bigamy under Article 349, RPC, and sentenced him to a term computed as four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional (minimum) to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor (maximum). Decision dated November 10, 1997 (Penned by Judge Rumoldo F. Fernandez, Rollo, pp. 156–162).
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court (Assignments of Error)
- I. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming conviction for bigamy despite alleged non‑existence of the first marriage and insufficiency of evidence.
- II. Whether the Court erred in convicting the accused for bigamy despite proof that the marriage between accused and private complainant had been declared null and void ab initio and without legal force and effect.
Legal Framework: Elements of Bigamy (Article 349, Revised Penal Code)
- The elements of bigamy under Article 349, RPC, are:
- (1) The offender has been legally married (a prior valid marriage exists);
- (2) The first marriage has not been legally dissolved or the absent spouse has not been presumed dead under the Civil Code;
- (3) The offender contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and
- (4) The second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity (i.e., the second marriage would be valid were it not for the subsistence of the first marriage). (Citing Reyes, L.B., THE REVISED PENAL CODE, Book Two, p. 907.)
Court’s Holding (Majority — Justice Ynares‑Santiago)
- Principal holding:
- A subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of a second or subsequent marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity does not retroact to the date of celebration of the marriage insofar as the Philippines’ penal laws are concerned.
- Therefore, a person who contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid first marriage is criminally liable for bigamy, notwithstanding a later judicial declaration that the second marriage is void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity.
- Applied result:
- The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and RTC in convicting petitioner Veronico Tenebro of bigamy and upheld the indeterminate sentence imposed by the Court of Appeals.
Court’s Reasoning on the Existence of the First Marriage
- The Court found the prosecution presented sufficient documentary and testimonial evidence to establish the existence of the first marriage (Tenebro–Villareyes on Nov. 10, 1986):
- The certified copy of the marriage contract, being a public document issued by the public officer in custody, was admissible and entitled to full faith and credence under Section 7, Rule 130, Rules of Court.
- The marriage contract is positive evidence of the marriage and outweighs defense documents which only attest to absence of record in the issuing offices.
- The defense certifications (NSO, City Civil Registry) merely attest absence of record, which is legally distinct from proof of absence of a marriage ceremony or proof of invalidity.
- No persuasive evidence was introduced to show the marriage lacked essential requisites for validity other than the accused’s self‑serving testimony; Villareyes’ letter and Ancajas’ testimony and petitioner’s conduct corroborated existence and validity of prior marriage.
- The NSO and City Civil Registry certifications were dated after the April 10, 1990 marriage to Ancajas, undermining their utility to negate existence at the time of the second marriage.
Court’s Reasoning on the Effect of Judicial Declaration of Nullity (Psychological Incapacity)
- Core points:
- Article 349 penalizes the mere act of contracting a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage; the crime is consummated at the time the subsequent marriage is celebrated during the subsistence of the first.
- A second marriage contracted during the subsistence of a valid first marriage is automatically void ab initio as a matter of family law, but such nullity, whether because it is bigamous or because of psychological incapacity, does not eliminate criminal liability under Article 349.
- The judicial declaration of nullity of the s