G.R. No. 227005 - BDO Unibank, Inc. vs. Lao

Case Summary (G.R. No. 227005)

Factual Background

The prosecution established that Norberto A. Vitangcol married Alice G. Eduardo at the Manila Cathedral on December 4, 1994, and that the marriage produced three children. Sometime later, Alice learned that Norberto had allegedly been previously married to Gina M. Gaerlan on July 17, 1987, as evidenced by a marriage contract bearing a marriage license number registered with the civil registrar. Alice filed a criminal complaint for bigamy against Norberto. Norberto admitted the 1994 marriage but claimed that his prior marriage to Gina was a “fake marriage” and presented a certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar of Imus, Cavite stating that no record of the alleged marriage license could be found.

Trial Court Proceedings

Branch 25 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila admitted the marriage contract between Norberto and Gina and found its authenticity established. The trial court concluded that Norberto was legally married to Gina when he married Alice and that his first marriage had not been judicially dissolved or declared presumptively dead. The trial court therefore convicted Norberto of bigamy under Article 349, Revised Penal Code, and imposed a penalty of six years and one day to twelve years of prision mayor.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law, setting an indeterminate penalty of two years and four months of prision correccional as minimum to eight years and one day of prision mayor as maximum. The Court of Appeals denied Norberto’s motion for reconsideration by resolution dated June 3, 2013.

Issues Presented

The principal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the civil registrar’s certification that no record of the marriage license existed proved that Norberto’s first marriage was void and thereby negated an essential element of the crime of bigamy. Subsidiarily, the case required resolution of whether a party may avoid criminal liability for contracting a subsequent marriage by relying on uncertified absence of a marriage license without obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity.

The Parties’ Contentions

Norberto A. Vitangcol argued that the prosecution failed to prove the validity of his first marriage because the civil registrar had no record of the marriage license and that legal dissolution of the first marriage was not an element of Article 349. He invoked reasonable doubt and sought acquittal. The People of the Philippines maintained that the prosecution proved the existence and subsistence of the first marriage by way of the marriage contract and that Norberto contracted a subsequent marriage with Alice while the first marriage remained undissolved, thereby satisfying all elements of bigamy.

Applicable Law on Bigamy and Requisites of Marriage

Article 349, Revised Penal Code punishes any person who contracts a second marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by judgment. The elements the prosecution must prove are: that the offender had been legally married; that the first marriage had not been legally dissolved or the absent spouse not judicially presumed dead; that the offender contracted a second marriage; and that the subsequent marriage had all essential requisites for validity. Under the Civil Code, Article 53 requires a marriage license as an essential requisite, and Article 58 prescribes that no marriage shall be solemnized without a license except in exceptional cases. Rule 132, sec. 28, Rules of Court admits a written statement by a custodian of records that, after diligent search, no record is found, as evidence that no such record exists.

Evaluation of Evidence and Reasoning

The Supreme Court gave decisive weight to the marriage contract between Norberto and Gina, noting Norberto’s admission of the authenticity of his signature on that contract and observing that the contract identified a specific marriage license number. The Court found the civil registrar’s certification that the license could not be found to be suspect in the context of a criminal prosecution for bigamy because the certificate could have been used by the accused to evade liability. The Court distinguished Republic v. Court of Appeals and Castro, where a certification of inability to find a license in a civil nullity action was unaccompanied by suspicion, and Nicdao Carino v. Yee Carino, where the marriage contract bore no license number and the registrar certified absence of any record; in the present case the existence of a marriage contract displaying a license number and the lack of corroborating proof that the license series was spurious rendered the registrar’s certification insufficient to overcome the evidentiary import of the contract. The Court explained that admission of a duly executed marriage contract sufficed to establish the prior marriage beyond reasonable doubt and that the burden then shifted to the defense to prove that no license existed.

Requirement of Judicial Declaration of Nullity

The Court reaffirmed the long-standing rule that parties must secure a judicial declaration of nullity before contracting a second marriage. The Court relied on Landicho v. Relova and the drafting rationale of Article 40, Family Code, to hold that private self-help determinations of marital nullity are impermissible for purposes of remarriage and criminal liability. The Court explained that elimination of the judicial-declaration requirement would render Article 349 meaningless by permitting an accused to assert that the first marriage was void without a final judgment, thereby escaping prosecution.

Ruling and Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision with modification. The Court held that all elements of Article 349, Revised Penal Code had been proved: Norberto’s prior marital status, the non-dissolution of that marriage, his subsequent marriage to Alice, and the presumption that the second marriage had the essent

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 227005)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Norberto A. Vitangcol was the petitioner charged with bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.
People of the Philippines prosecuted the criminal information filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila.
Branch 25 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila convicted the accused of bigamy and imposed a penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years of prision mayor.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification and imposed an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional as minimum to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum.
The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in its Resolution dated June 3, 2013.
The petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari, which the Court resolved by denying the petition and affirming with modification the Court of Appeals decision.

Key Factual Allegations

Petitioner allegedly contracted a first marriage with Gina M. Gaerlan on July 17, 1987 as evidenced by a marriage contract bearing a marriage license number.
Petitioner allegedly contracted a second marriage with Alice G. Eduardo on December 4, 1994 at the Manila Cathedral and fathered three children from that union.
Alice G. Eduardo discovered petitioner’s prior marriage and filed the criminal complaint for bigamy.
Petitioner claimed the first marriage was a “fake marriage” and later presented a Certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar of Imus, Cavite stating that no record of Marriage License No. 8683519 was found after a diligent search.
Petitioner admitted the authenticity of his signature on the marriage contract with Gina M. Gaerlan.
Petitioner did not obtain a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage before contracting the second marriage and did not produce any annulment or nullity decision while the criminal case was pending.

Issue Presented

The principal issue was whether a Certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar that no record of the alleged marriage license exists proves the nullity of the first marriage and thereby exculpates petitioner from the crime of bigamy.

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioner contended that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of an essential requisite of marriage, namely the marriage license, and that any reasonable doubt required his acquittal.
Petitioner asserted that legal dissolution of the first marriage is not an element of Article 349 and thus the absence of judicial nullity should not sustain a bigamy conviction.
The prosecution contended that the marriage contract established the prior valid marriage, that the first marriage remained undissolved and that the subsequent marriage to Alice had all essential requisites for validity, thereby establishing the elements of bigamy.

Statutory Framework

Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes the crime of bigamy.
Article 53 and Article 58 of the Civil Code (Rep. Act No. 386) set forth the requisites of marriage and the requirement of a marriage license for marriages solemnized before the effective date of the Family Code.
Article 83 of the Civil Code prescribes that a subsequent marriage during the lifetime of the first spouse is illegal and void unless the first marriage is annulled or otherwise dissolved or the first spouse is judicially presumed dead.
Article 40 of the Family Code reiterates that absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for remarriage only on the basis of a final judgment declaring the previous marriage void.
Rule 132, Section 28 of the Rules of Court governs proof of lack of record by certification from the custodian of public records.
The Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, sec. 1, as amended by Act No. 4225) controls the computation and imposition of the indeterminate penalty.

Trial Court Ruling

The Regional Trial Court found that petitioner contracted a second marriage while the first marriage to Gina remained