GR 224742; (August, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 224742 . August 07, 2019
PRUDENCIO DE GUZMAN Y JUMAQUIO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner Prudencio De Guzman was legally married to Arlene De Guzman in 1994. In 2009, he contracted a second marriage with Jean Basan while his first marriage was still subsisting. Arlene discovered the second marriage and filed a complaint for bigamy. During trial, Prudencio defended himself by arguing that his first marriage to Arlene was void because the copy of their Marriage Contract from the National Statistics Office lacked the solemnizing officer’s signature. He also later claimed that a Certificate of No Marriage Record from the NSO led him to believe he could remarry. The trial court convicted him of bigamy, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Prudencio elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Prudencio De Guzman’s conviction for the crime of bigamy.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code were proven: (1) a first valid marriage; (2) that marriage was not legally dissolved; (3) the accused contracted a second marriage; and (4) the second marriage had all the essential requisites for validity. The Court emphasized that a marriage, even one allegedly void from the beginning, cannot be unilaterally declared void by a party. A judicial declaration of absolute nullity is indispensable before a person may remarry, pursuant to Article 40 of the Family Code. Prudencio’s defense—the absence of a signature on one copy of the marriage contract and an NSO certificate—does not invalidate the first marriage or negate criminal liability. The certified true copy from the local civil registrar, which bore the signature, along with other evidence like photographs and Prudencio’s own admissions, sufficiently proved the marriage’s existence. His mistaken belief, based on an NSO certificate, does not constitute a valid defense in bigamy, which is a public crime. The Affidavit of Desistance executed by Arlene is inconsequential as it does not cancel the established elements of the crime. The penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals was proper.