GR 181089; (October, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 181089; October 22, 2012
MERLINDA CIPRIANO MONTAĂ‘ES, Complainant, vs. LOURDES TAJOLOSA CIPRIANO, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Lourdes Tajolosa Cipriano married Socrates Flores in 1976. During the subsistence of this marriage, she contracted a second marriage with Silverio V. Cipriano in 1983. In 2001, respondent filed a petition to have her first marriage declared null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa granted the petition in 2003, declaring the first marriage null and void ab initio. Subsequently, in 2004, a complaint for bigamy was filed against respondent by Silverio’s daughter.
The prosecution filed an Information for bigamy. Before arraignment, respondent moved to quash the Information, arguing that the judicial declaration of nullity of her first marriage meant no valid first marriage existed when she contracted the second marriage, thus negating an essential element of bigamy. The RTC initially denied the motion but, upon reconsideration, granted it and dismissed the case. The RTC reasoned that since both marriages were contracted before the effectivity of the Family Code, the prevailing law and jurisprudence at that time did not uniformly require a prior judicial declaration of nullity for a subsequent marriage to be valid, and the principle of liberal interpretation in favor of the accused applied.
ISSUE
Whether the subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage absolves the accused of criminal liability for bigamy.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the RTC’s order of dismissal and reinstated the Information for bigamy. The crime of bigamy, under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, is consummated at the moment a person contracts a second marriage before the first marriage has been legally dissolved. The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage is immaterial to the existence of the crime, as the act punishable by law—contracting a second marriage while the first is subsisting—had already been completed.
The Court clarified that the ruling in Mercado v. Tan is controlling. The declaration of nullity does not retroactively exempt one from criminal liability for an act already committed. At the time respondent contracted her second marriage in 1983, her first marriage was legally presumed valid and subsisting in the eyes of the law, as it had not yet been annulled or declared void by a competent court. The element of a “first marriage” for purposes of bigamy refers to a marriage that has not been judicially terminated at the time the second marriage is contracted, not to a marriage that is later declared void. Therefore, all elements of bigamy were present when respondent married Silverio, and the subsequent nullity decree does not extinguish her criminal liability. The case was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings.