Case Summary (G.R. No. L-11944)
Procedural Background
The Manila Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, convicted Vitangcol of bigamy and imposed a penalty of six years and one day to twelve years of prision mayor. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty under the Indeterminate Sentence Law to two years and four months of prision correccional as minimum to eight years and one day of prision mayor as maximum. Vitangcol’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting a Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Issue Presented
Whether a certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar stating no record of a marriage license can establish the nullity of Vitangcol’s first marriage and thereby bar his conviction for bigamy.
Applicable Law
As the decision was rendered in 2016, the 1987 Philippine Constitution governs. Substantive provisions include Article 349 RPC defining bigamy, Civil Code Article 53 requiring a marriage license, Civil Code Article 80 declaring marriages void for lack of license, and Civil Code Article 83 on voidability of subsequent marriages without judicial nullity.
Court’s Findings on Marriage License Requirement
Marriages prior to August 3, 1988 are governed by the Civil Code. Article 53 lists four requisites for a valid marriage, including the necessity of a license issued by the local civil registrar. Absence of a license renders the marriage void ab initio under Article 80.
Elements of Bigamy Established
To convict, the prosecution must prove: (1) a valid first marriage; (2) absence of legal dissolution or presumption of death; (3) contracting a second marriage; and (4) validity of the second marriage’s formal requisites. All elements were satisfied: Vitangcol’s 1987 marriage to Gina subsisted; no annulment or presumption of death was obtained; he married Alice in 1994; and that marriage complied with all formal requisites.
Discussion on Certification of No Record
The petitioner relied on a March 19, 2008 certification from Imus, Cavite, that no license record was found. The Court held this insufficient to prove non-issuance. The marriage contract bearing a license number and Vitangcol’s admitted signature carried greater probative weight. The circumstances suggested the certification was procured to evade criminal liability, undermining its credibility.
Nullity and Judicial Declaration Requirement
Even if the first marriage lacked a license, it remained valid until declared void by a competent court. Relying on Landicho v. Relova, the Court reaffirmed that parties cannot self-declare nullity. A judicial declaration of nullity is a mandatory precondition to remarriage and to avoid bigamy liability.
Indeterminate Senten
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-11944)
Background of the Dispute
- Petitioner Norberto A. Vitangcol was legally married to Gina M. Gaerlan on July 17, 1987, as shown by a marriage contract registered with the National Statistics Office.
- Without obtaining any judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage, Norberto contracted a second marriage with Alice G. Eduardo on December 4, 1994, at the Manila Cathedral.
- Three children were born of the second union.
- Rumors of Norberto’s prior marriage reached Alice years later, prompting her to file a criminal Complaint for bigamy against him in 2007–2008.
Charge and Trial Court Proceedings
- On April 29, 2008, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila charged Norberto with bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.
- The Information alleged that Norberto, knowing his first marriage was subsisting, unlawfully contracted a subsequent valid marriage with Alice.
- Norberto pleaded not guilty; trial ensued before Branch 25 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila.
- The RTC, in its Decision dated September 1, 2010, found all elements of bigamy proven and convicted Norberto, sentencing him to six years and one day to twelve years of prision mayor.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- Norberto appealed; the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision on July 18, 2012.
- It affirmed the RTC’s finding of guilt but modified the penalty pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law to an indeterminate term of two years and four months of prision correccional (minimum) to eight years and one day of prision mayor (maximum).
- Norberto’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied by Resolution dated June 3, 2013.
Petition for Review on Certiorari
- Norberto filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing:
• The prosecution failed to prove the existence of his first valid marriage, citing a Certification from the Civil Registrar of Imus, Cavite showing no record of the marriage license allegedly issued in 1987.
• The legal dissolution of the first marriage is not an element of