Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No.

159218 March 30, 2004

SALVADOR S. A UNADO a!" #ENA$DA $%AS A UNADO, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE O& T'E P'$L$PP$NES, Responden D (NARES)SANT$AGO, J.: This petition for revie" on certiorari see#s to reverse and set aside the decision$ of the !ourt of %ppeals in !%&'.R. No. ()$*+ "hich affir,ed "ith ,odification the decision of the Re-ional Trial !ourt, .ranch //, San Mateo, Ri0al in !ri,inal !ase No. (12* convictin- petitioner Salvador S. %bunado of bi-a,3. The records sho" that on Septe,ber $1, $4)/, Salvador ,arried Narcisa %rce5o at the Manila !it3 6all before Rev. Pedro Tian-co.( In $411 Narcisa left for 7apan to "or# but returned to the Philippines in $44(, "hen she learned that her husband "as havin- an e8tra&,arital affair and has left their con9u-al ho,e. %fter earnest efforts, Narcisa found Salvador in :ue0on !it3 cohabitin- "ith Fe !ora0on Plato. She also discovered that on 7anuar3 $2, $414, Salvador contracted a second ,arria-e "ith a certain ;enaida .i5as before 7ud-e <ilian Dinulos Panonton-an in San Mateo, Ri0al.* On 7anuar3 $4, $44+, an annul,ent case "as filed b3 Salvador a-ainst Narcisa.= On Ma3 $1, $44+, a case for bi-a,3 "as filed b3 Narcisa a-ainst Salvador and ;enaida.+ Salvador ad,itted that he first ,arried ;enaida on Dece,ber (=, $4++ before a ,unicipal trial court 9ud-e in !oncepcion, Iloilo and has four children "ith her prior to their separation in $4)). It appeared ho"ever that there "as no evidence of their $4++ ,arria-e so he and ;enaida re,arried on 7anuar3 $2, $414, upon the re>uest of their son for the purpose of co,pl3in- "ith the re>uire,ents for his co,,ission in the ,ilitar3. On Ma3 $1, (22$, the trial court convicted petitioner Salvador %bunado of bi-a,3 and sentenced hi, to suffer i,prison,ent of si8 ?)@ 3ears and one ?$@ da3, as ,ini,u,, to ei-ht ?1@ 3ears and one ?$@ da3, as ,a8i,u,. Petitioner ;enaida .i5as "as ac>uitted for insufficienc3 of evidence.) On appeal, the !ourt of %ppeals affir,ed "ith ,odification the decision of the trial court, as follo"sA B6 R FOR , the Decision appealed fro, is hereb3 MODIFI D as to the penalt3 i,posed but %FFIRM D in all other respects. %ppreciatin- the ,iti-atin- circu,stance that accused is /) 3ears of a-e and appl3in- the provisions of the Indeter,inate Sentence <a", the appellant is hereb3 sentenced to suffer an indeter,inate prison ter, of t"o ?(@ 3ears, four ?=@ ,onths and one ?$@ da3 of prision correccional as Mini,u, to si8 ?)@ 3ears and one ?$@ da3 of prision ,a3or as Ma8i,u,. No costs. SO ORD R D./ Petitioner is no" before us on petition for revie". First, he ar-ues that the Infor,ation "as defective as it stated that the bi-a,ous ,arria-e "as contracted in $44+ "hen in fact it should have been $414. !ISION

Indeed, an accused has the ri-ht to be infor,ed of the nature and cause of the accusation a-ainst hi,.1 It is re>uired that the acts and o,issions co,plained of as constitutin- the offense ,ust be alle-ed in the Infor,ation.4 The real nature of the cri,e char-ed is deter,ined b3 the facts alle-ed in the Infor,ation and not b3 the title or desi-nation of the offense contained in the caption of the Infor,ation. It is funda,ental that ever3 ele,ent of "hich the offense is co,prised ,ust be alle-ed in the Infor,ation. Bhat facts and circu,stances are necessar3 to be alle-ed in the Infor,ation ,ust be deter,ined b3 reference to the definition and essential ele,ents of the specific cri,es.$2 The >uestion, therefore, is "hether petitioner has been sufficientl3 infor,ed of the nature and cause of the accusation a-ainst hi,, na,el3, that he contracted a subse>uent ,arria-e "ith another "o,an "hile his first ,arria-e "as subsistin-. The infor,ation a-ainst petitioner alle-esA That in or about and so,eti,e in the ,onth of 7anuar3, $44+ at the Municipalit3 of San Mateo, Ri0al place ?sic@ "ithin the 9urisdiction of this 6onorable !ourt, the above&na,ed accused, havin- been le-all3 ,arried to co,plainant Narcisa %bunado on Septe,ber $), $4)/ "hich has not been le-all3 dissolved, did then and there "illfull3, unla"full3 and feloniousl3 contract a subse>uent ,arria-e to ;enaida .i5as %bunado on 7anuar3 $2, $414 "hich has all the essential re>uisites of a valid ,arria-e. !ONTR%RC TO <%B.$$ The state,ent in the infor,ation that the cri,e "as co,,itted Din or about and so,eti,e in the ,onth of 7anuar3, $44+,D "as an obvious t3po-raphical error, for the sa,e infor,ation clearl3 states that petitioner contracted a subse>uent ,arria-e to ;enaida .i5as %bunado on 7anuar3 $2, $414. PetitionerEs sub,ission, therefore, that the infor,ation "as defective is untenable. The -eneral rule is that a defective infor,ation cannot support a 9ud-,ent of conviction unless the defect "as cured b3 evidence durin- the trial and no ob9ection appears to have been raised.$( It should be re,e,bered that bi-a,3 can be successfull3 prosecuted provided all its ele,ents concur F t"o of "hich are a previous ,arria-e and a subse>uent ,arria-e "hich possesses all the re>uisites for validit3.$* %ll of these have been sufficientl3 established b3 the prosecution durin- the trial. Notabl3, petitioner failed to ob9ect to the alle-ed defect in the Infor,ation durin- the trial and onl3 raised the sa,e for the first ti,e on appeal before the !ourt of %ppeals. Second, petitioner ar-ues that Narcisa consented to his ,arria-e to ;enaida, "hich had the effect of absolvin- hi, of cri,inal liabilit3. In this re-ard, "e a-ree "ith the !ourt of %ppeals "hen it ruled, thusA 8 8 8, "hile he clai,s that there "as condonation on the part of co,plainant "hen he entered into a bi-a,ous ,arria-e, the sa,e "as li#e"ise not established b3 clear and convincin- evidence. .ut then, a pardon b3 the offended part3 does not e8tin-uish cri,inal action considerin- that a cri,e is co,,itted a-ainst the State and the cri,e of .i-a,3 is a public offense "hich can be denounced not onl3 b3 the person affected thereb3 but even b3 a civic&spirited citi0en "ho ,a3 co,e to #no" the sa,e.$= Third, petitioner clai,s that his petition for annul,entGdeclaration of nullit3 of ,arria-e "as a pre9udicial >uestion, hence, the proceedin-s in the bi-a,3 case should have been suspended durin- the pendenc3 of the annul,ent case. Petitioner, in fact, eventuall3 obtained a 9udicial declaration of nullit3 of his ,arria-e to Narcisa on October (4, $444.$+ % pre9udicial >uestion has been defined as one based on a fact distinct and separate fro, the cri,e but so inti,atel3 connected "ith it that it deter,ines the -uilt or innocence of the accused, and for it to suspend the cri,inal action, it ,ust appear not onl3 that said case involves facts inti,atel3 related to those upon "hich the cri,inal prosecution "ould

be based but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the -uilt or innocence of the accused "ould necessaril3 be deter,ined. The rationale behind the principle of suspendin- a cri,inal case in vie" of a pre9udicial >uestion is to avoid t"o conflictin- decisions.$) The subse>uent 9udicial declaration of the nullit3 of the first ,arria-e "as i,,aterial because prior to the declaration of nullit3, the cri,e had alread3 been consu,,ated. Moreover, petitionerEs assertion "ould onl3 dela3 the prosecution of bi-a,3 cases considerin- that an accused could si,pl3 file a petition to declare his previous ,arria-e void and invo#e the pendenc3 of that action as a pre9udicial >uestion in the cri,inal case. Be cannot allo" that.$/ The outco,e of the civil case for annul,ent of petitionerEs ,arria-e to Narcisa had no bearin- upon the deter,ination of petitionerEs innocence or -uilt in the cri,inal case for bi-a,3, because all that is re>uired for the char-e of bi-a,3 to prosper is that the first ,arria-e be subsistin- at the ti,e the second ,arria-e is contracted.$1 Thus, under the la", a ,arria-e, even one "hich is void or voidable, shall be dee,ed valid until declared other"ise in a 9udicial proceedin-.$4 In this case, even if petitioner eventuall3 obtained a declaration that his first ,arria-e "as void ab initio, the point is, both the first and the second ,arria-e "ere subsistin- before the first ,arria-e "as annulled. Finally, petitioner clai,s that the penalt3 i,posed on hi, "as i,proper. %rticle *=4 of the Revised Penal !ode i,poses the penalt3 of prision ,a3or for bi-a,3. Hnder the Indeter,inate Sentence <a", the court shall sentence the accused to an indeter,inate penalt3, the ,a8i,u, ter, of "hich shall be that "hich, in vie" of the attendin- circu,stances, could be properl3 i,posed under the Revised Penal !ode, and the ,ini,u, ter, of "hich shall be "ithin the ran-e of the penalt3 ne8t lo"er to that prescribed b3 the !ode for the offense. The penalt3 ne8t lo"er "ould be based on the penalt3 prescribed b3 the !ode for the offense, "ithout first considerin- an3 ,odif3incircu,stance attendant to the co,,ission of the cri,e. The deter,ination of the ,ini,u, penalt3 is left b3 la" to the sound discretion of the court and it can be an3"here "ithin the ran-e of the penalt3 ne8t lo"er "ithout an3 reference to the periods into "hich it ,i-ht be subdivided. The ,odif3in- circu,stances are considered onl3 in the i,position of the ,a8i,u, ter, of the indeter,inate sentence.(2 In li-ht of the fact that petitioner is ,ore than /2 3ears of a-e,($ "hich is a ,iti-atincircu,stance under %rticle $*, para-raph ( of the Revised Penal !ode, the ,a8i,u, ter, of the indeter,inate sentence should be ta#en fro, prision ,a3or in its ,ini,u, period "hich ran-es fro, si8 ?)@ 3ears and one ?$@ da3 to ei-ht ?1@ 3ears, "hile the ,ini,u, ter, should be ta#en fro, prision correccional in an3 of its periods "hich ran-es fro, si8 ?)@ ,onths and one ?$@ da3 to si8 ?)@ 3ears. Therefore, the penalt3 i,posed b3 the !ourt of %ppeals, i.e., t"o ?(@ 3ears, four ?=@ ,onths and one ?$@ da3 of prision correccional, as ,ini,u,, to si8 ?)@ 3ears and one ?$@ da3 of prision ,a3or, as ,a8i,u,, is proper. B6 R FOR , in vie" of the fore-oin-, the decision of the !ourt of %ppeals in !%& '.R. !R No. ()$*+, findin- petitioner Salvador S. %bunado -uilt3 be3ond reasonable doubt of the cri,e of bi-a,3, and sentencin- hi, to suffer an indeter,inate penalt3 of t"o ?(@ 3ears, four ?=@ ,onths and one ?$@ da3 of prision correccional, as ,ini,u,, to si8 ?)@ 3ears and one ?$@ da3 of prision ,a3or, as ,a8i,u,, is %FFIRM D. !osts de oficio. SO ORD R D. Davide, Jr., C.J. (Chairman), Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago, Car io, and !"c#na, JJ.

Co!c*rr+!, O-+!+o! CARP$O, J.: I concur in the result of the ponencia of 7ustice !onsuelo Cnares&Santia-o findinappellant Salvador S. %bunado -uilt3 of bi-a,3. The ,aterial facts are not in dispute. On $1 Septe,ber $4)/, %bunado ,arried Narcisa %rceno. Bhile his ,arria-e "ith %rceno re,ained unannulled, %bunado ,arried ;enaida .i5as on $2 7anuar3 $414. Subse>uentl3, on (4 October $444, %bunado obtained fro, the Re-ional Trial !ourt of Ma#ati !it3 a 9udicial declaration of nullit3 of his ,arria-e "ith %rceno. On $1 Ma3 (22$, the Re-ional Trial !ourt of San Mateo, Ri0al rendered a decision convictin- %bunado of bi-a,3. The sole issue is "hether the second ,arria-e of %bunado to .i5as on $2 7anuar3 $414 constitutes the cri,e of bi-a,3 under %rticle *=4$ of the Revised Penal !ode. More precisel3, the issue turns on "hether %bunadoEs first ,arria-e to %rceno "as still subsistin- at the ti,e %bunado ,arried .i5as. Hnder the Fa,il3 !ode, before one can contract a second ,arria-e on the -round of nullit3 of the first ,arria-e, one ,ust first secure a final 9ud-,ent declarin- the first ,arria-e void. %rticle =2 of the Fa,il3 !ode providesA %rt. =2. The absolute nullit3 of a previous ,arria-e ,a3 be invo#ed for purposes of re,arria-e on the basis solel3 of a final 9ud-,ent declarin- such previous ,arria-e void. The Fa,il3 !ode too# effect on * %u-ust $411, before the second ,arria-e of %bunado on $2 7anuar3 $414. Prior to the Fa,il3 !ode, one could contract a subse>uent ,arria-e on the -round of nullit3 of the previous ,arria-e "ithout first securin- a 9udicial annul,ent of the previous ,arria-e. If subse>uentl3 the previous ,arria-e "ere 9udiciall3 declared void, the subse>uent ,arria-e "ould not be dee,ed bi-a,ous. The nullit3 of the previous ,arria-e could even be 9udiciall3 declared in the cri,inal case for bi-a,3,( althou-h the person re,arr3in- Dassu,e?d@ the ris# of bein- prosecuted for bi-a,3D* should the court uphold the validit3 of the first ,arria-e. %rticle =2 of the Fa,il3 !ode has chan-ed this. No", one ,ust first secure a final 9udicial declaration of nullit3 of the previous ,arria-e before he is freed fro, the ,arital bond or vinculu, of the previous ,arria-e. If he fails to secure a 9udicial declaration of nullit3 and contracts a second ,arria-e, then the second ,arria-e beco,es bi-a,ous. %s the !ourt stated in Do,in-o v. !ourt of %ppeals= in e8plainin- %rticle =2 of the Fa,il3 !odeA In fact, the re>uire,ent for a declaration of absolute nullit3 of a ,arria-e is also for the protection of the spouse "ho, believin- that his or her ,arria-e is ille-al and void, ,arries a-ain. Bith the 9udicial declaration of the nullit3 of his or her first ,arria-e, the person "ho ,arries a-ain cannot be char-ed "ith bi-a,3. !onversel3, if the person re,arries "ithout securin- a 9udicial declaration of nullit3 of his previous ,arria-e, he is liable for bi-a,3. %rticle =2 of the Fa,il3 !ode considers the ,arital vinculu, of the previous ,arria-e to subsist for purposes of re,arria-e, unless the previous ,arria-e is 9udiciall3 declared void b3 final 9ud-,ent. Thus, if the ,arital vinculu, of the previous ,arria-e subsists because of the absence of 9udicial declaration of its nullit3, the second ,arria-e is contracted durin- the e8istence of the first ,arria-e resultin- in the cri,e of bi-a,3. Hnder %rticle =2 of the Fa,il3 !ode, the ,arital vinculu, of a previous ,arria-e that is void ab initio subsists onl3 for purposes of re,arria-e. For purposes other than re,arria-e, ,arria-es that are void ab initio, such as those fallin- under %rticles *+ and *) of the Fa,il3 !ode, are void even "ithout a 9udicial declaration of nullit3. %s the !ourt held in !ari5o v. !ari5oA+

Hnder %rticle =2 of the Fa,il3 !ode, the absolute nullit3 of a previous ,arria-e ,a3 be invo#ed for purposes of re,arria-e on the basis solel3 of a final 9ud-,ent declarin- such previous ,arria-e void. Meanin-, "here the absolute nullit3 of a previous ,arria-e is sou-ht to be invo#ed for purposes of contractin- a second ,arria-e, the sole basis acceptable in la", for said pro9ected ,arria-e to be free fro, le-al infir,it3, is a final 9ud-,ent declarin- the previous ,arria-e void. 6o"ever, for purposes other than re,arria-e, no 9udicial action is necessar3 to declare a ,arria-e an absolute nullit3. 8 8 8 . ? ,phasis supplied@ !ari5o, penned b3 7ustice !onsuelo Cnares&Santia-o herself, contradicts the state,ent in her present ponencia that Dunder the la", a ,arria-e, even one "hich is void or voidable, shall be dee,ed valid until declared other"ise in a 9udicial proceedin-.D I believe the rulin- in !ari5o is correct and should not be disturbed. %s 7ustice 7ose !. Vitue8plained in his recent te8tboo# on !ivil <a" ?Volu,e I@A The phrase Dfor purposes of re,arria-eD is not at all insi-nificant. Void ,arria-es, li#e void contracts, are ine8istent fro, the ver3 be-innin-. It is onl3 b3 "a3 of e8ception that the Fa,il3 !ode re>uires a 9udicial declaration of nullit3 of the previous ,arria-e before a subse>uent ,arria-e is contractedI 8 8 8.) ? ,phasis supplied@ Thus, the -eneral rule is if the ,arria-e is void ab initio, it is ipso facto void "ithout need of an3 9udicial declaration of nullit3. The onl3 reco-ni0ed e8ception/ under e8istin- la" is %rticle =2 of the Fa,il3 !ode "here a ,arria-e void ab initio is dee,ed valid for purposes of re,arria-e, hence necessitatin- a 9udicial declaration of nullit3 before one can contract a subse>uent ,arria-e. %rticle =2 of the Fa,il3 !ode applies onl3 to a situation "here the previous ,arria-e suffers fro, nullit3 "hile the second ,arria-e does not. Hnder %rticle =2, "hat re>uires a 9udicial declaration of nullit3 is the previous ,arria-e, not the subse>uent ,arria-e. %rticle =2 does not appl3 to a situation "here the first ,arria-e does not suffer fro, an3 defect "hile the second is void. %ccordin-l3, I vote to den3 the petition and affir, the decision of the !ourt of %ppeals findin- appellant Salvador S. %bunado -uilt3 of the cri,e of bi-a,3. ANTON$O T. CARP$O %ssociate 7ustice

&oo.!o./0
$

Penned b3 %ssociate 7ustice 7osefina 'uevara&Salon-a and concurred in b3 %ssociate 7ustices Marina <. .u0on and Danilo .. Pine.
(

8hibit D!D, Records, p. )1. 8hibit D7D, Records, p. 1$. Records, p. (2(. Records, p. $. Penned b3 7ud-e Francisco !. Rodri-ue0I Rollo, pp. **&=(. Rollo, p. +*. !onstitution, %rt. III, Sec. $=?(@. Revised Rules on !ri,inal Procedure, Rule $$2, Sec. ). 'arcia v. People, '.R. No. $==/1+, $$ Septe,ber (22*.

$2

$$

Rollo, p. *2I underscorin- ours. People v. Villa,or, '.R. No. $(===$, / October $441, (4/ S!R% ()(, (/2.

$(

$*

Marbella&.obis v. .obis, '.R. No. $*1+24, *$ 7ul3 (222, **) S!R% /=/, /+(& /+*.
$=

Rollo, p. +$. %nne8 D$D, Records, p. (21

$+

$)

Te v. !ourt of %ppeals, '.R. No. $()/=), (4 Nove,ber (222, *=) S!R% *(/, **+.
$/

Mercado v. Tan, '.R. No. $*/$$2, $ %u-ust (222, **/ S!R% $((, $**. Te v. !ourt of %ppeals, supra. Supra. 'arcia v. People, supra. 8hibit D7D, Records, p. 1$.

$1

$4

(2

($

CARP$O
$

%rticle *=4 of the Revised Penal !ode provides as follo"sA D.i-a,3& The penalt3 of prision ,a3or shall be i,posed upon an3 person "ho shall contract a second or subse>uent ,arria-e before the for,er ,arria-e has been le-all3 dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presu,ptivel3 dead b3 ,eans of a 9ud-,ent rendered in the proper proceedin-s.D
(

People v. Mendo0a, 4+ Phil. 1=+ ?$4+=@I People v. %ra-on, $22 Phil. $2** ?$4+/@.
*

<andicho v. Relova, et al., $*2 Phil. /=+ ?$4)1@. '.R. No. $2=1$1, $/ Septe,ber $44*, (() S!R% +/(. '.R. No. $*(+(4, ( Februar3 (22$, *+$ S!R% $(/. !ivil <a", Persons and Fa,il3 Relations, Vol. I, ?(22* d.@ See also note =.