GR 159031; (June, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 159031, June 23, 2014
NOEL A. LASANAS, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Noel Lasanas and Socorro Patingo were married in a civil ceremony on February 16, 1968, solemnized by a judge, but without a marriage license and without executing an affidavit of cohabitation. They reaffirmed their vows in a religious ceremony on August 27, 1980, again without a marriage license or affidavit of cohabitation. They separated de facto in 1982. On December 27, 1993, Lasanas contracted marriage with Josefa Eslaban in a religious ceremony, with his civil status reflected as “single” on the marriage certificate. In July 1996, Lasanas filed a complaint for annulment of his marriage to Patingo in the RTC (Civil Case No. 23133), alleging deceit and fraud. In October 1998, Patingo charged Lasanas with bigamy. On November 24, 1998, the RTC in the annulment case dismissed Lasanas’s complaint and declared his marriage to Patingo valid and legal. Meanwhile, in the criminal case for bigamy (Criminal Case No. 49808), the RTC convicted Lasanas on October 30, 2000. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on August 29, 2002.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner is guilty of the crime of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, considering that his first marriage was allegedly void from the beginning for lack of a marriage license.
RULING
Yes, the petitioner is guilty of bigamy. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. The crime of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code requires: (1) a legal first marriage; (2) that marriage has not been legally dissolved or the absent spouse declared presumptively dead; (3) the contracting of a second or subsequent marriage; and (4) the second marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. The Court ruled that a judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage is a prerequisite before contracting a subsequent marriage, even if the first marriage is void on its face (such as for lack of a license). The petitioner’s failure to secure such judicial declaration prior to his second marriage rendered him criminally liable for bigamy. His defense of good faith or honest belief was unavailing. The penalty imposed by the RTC, an indeterminate sentence of two years and four months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years and one day of prision mayor as maximum, was affirmed.