GR 188775; (August, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No. 188775 ; August 24, 2011
CENON R. TEVES, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and DANILO R. BONGALON, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Cenon R. Teves was legally married to Thelma Jaime-Teves on November 26, 1992. On December 10, 2001, while his first marriage was still subsisting, he contracted a second marriage with Edita Calderon. On February 13, 2006, Danilo Bongalon, Thelma’s uncle, filed a complaint for bigamy against Teves. An Information was filed on June 8, 2006. During the pendency of the criminal case, the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City rendered a decision on May 4, 2006, declaring Teves’s first marriage to Thelma null and void ab initio on the ground of physical incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. This decision became final on June 27, 2006. The trial court found Teves guilty of bigamy on August 15, 2007, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on January 21, 2009. Teves appealed, arguing that the subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage extinguished his criminal liability for bigamy.
ISSUE
Whether the subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage extinguishes the criminal liability for bigamy committed prior to such declaration.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The crime of bigamy was complete on December 10, 2001, when Teves contracted a second marriage while his first marriage was legally undissolved. The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage, which became final only on June 27, 2006, does not retroact to the date of the bigamous marriage to absolve him of criminal liability. The Court reiterated the elements of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code: (1) a valid first marriage; (2) that marriage has not been legally dissolved; (3) the contracting of a second marriage; and (4) the second marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. All elements were present at the time of the second marriage. The Family Code requires a prior judicial declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage before a party can contract a subsequent marriage without incurring criminal liability. To rule otherwise would allow offenders to evade prosecution by securing a declaration of nullity after committing the crime. Criminal liability attaches upon commission of the offense and is not extinguished by a subsequent event that nullifies the first marriage.