Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 164435
marriage to Uy. The CA also struck down, for lack of sufficient evidence, petitioners
contentions that her marriages were celebrated without a marriage license, and that Uy
had notice of her previous marriage as far back as 1978.
In the meantime, the RTC of Makati City, Branch 140, rendered a Decision dated March
28, 2003, declaring petitioners 1974 and 1975 marriages to Alocillo null and void ab
initio on the ground of Alocillos psychological incapacity. Said decision became final
and executory on July 9, 2003. In her motion for reconsideration, petitioner invoked
said declaration of nullity as a ground for the reversal of her conviction. However, in its
Resolution dated July 8, 2004, the CA, citing Tenebro v. Court of Appeals,4 denied
reconsideration and ruled that "[t]he subsequent declaration of nullity of her first
marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity, while it retroacts to the date of the
celebration of the marriage insofar as the vinculum between the spouses is concerned,
the said marriage is not without legal consequences, among which is incurring criminal
liability for bigamy."5
Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
where petitioner alleges that:
V.1. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR
IN PROCEEDING WITH THE CASE DESPITE THE PENDENCY OF A
CASE WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE.
V.2. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR
IN AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION OF PETITIONER FOR THE
CRIME OF BIGAMY DESPITE THE SUPERVENING PROOF THAT
THE FIRST TWO MARRIAGES OF PETITIONER TO ALOCILLO HAD
BEEN DECLARED BY FINAL JUDGMENT NULL AND VOID AB
INITIO.
V.3. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR
IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THERE IS A PENDING ANNULMENT
OF MARRIAGE AT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 38
BETWEEN EMMANUEL SANTOS AND VICTORIA S. JARILLO.
V.4. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR
IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE INSTANT CASE OF BIGAMY
HAD ALREADY PRESCRIBED.
V.5. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR
IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE MARRIAGE OF VICTORIA
JARILLO AND EMMANUEL SANTOS UY HAS NO VALID
MARRIAGE LICENSE.
V.6. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR
IN NOT ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER BUT IMPOSED AN
ERRONEOUS PENALTY UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE AND
THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW.
The first, second, third and fifth issues, being closely related, shall be discussed jointly.
It is true that right after the presentation of the prosecution evidence, petitioner moved
for suspension of the proceedings on the ground of the pendency of the petition for
minimum penalty, as long as it is anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower
without any reference to the periods into which it might be subdivided. The modifying
circumstances are considered only in the imposition of the maximum term of the
indeterminate sentence.16
Applying the foregoing rule, it is clear that the penalty imposed on petitioner is proper.
Under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, the imposable penalty for bigamy is
prision mayor. The penalty next lower is prision correccional, which ranges from 6
months and 1 day to 6 years. The minimum penalty of six years imposed by the trial
court is, therefore, correct as it is still within the duration of prision correccional. There
being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances proven in this case, the prescribed
penalty of prision mayor should be imposed in its medium period, which is from 8 years
and 1 day to 10 years. Again, the trial court correctly imposed a maximum penalty of 10
years.
However, for humanitarian purposes, and considering that petitioners marriage to
Alocillo has after all been declared by final judgment17 to be void ab initio on account
of the latters psychological incapacity, by reason of which, petitioner was subjected to
manipulative abuse, the Court deems it proper to reduce the penalty imposed by the
lower courts. Thus, petitioner should be sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment from Two (2) years, Four (4) months and One (1) day of prision
correccional, as minimum, to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 21, 2003, and its Resolution dated July 8,
2004 are hereby MODIFIED as to the penalty imposed, but AFFIRMED in all other
respects. Petitioner is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment
from Two (2) years, Four (4) months and One (1) day of prision correccional, as
minimum, to Eight (8) years and One (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
AT T E S TAT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Third Division, Chairperson
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts
Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
1 Penned by Associate Justice Bernardo P. Abesamis, with Associate Justices
Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Jose C. Mendoza, concurring; rollo, pp. 8-21.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr., with Associate Justices Mariano
C. del Castillo and Jose C. Mendoza, concurring; rollo, pp. 22-23.
3 Rollo, pp. 9-10.
4 467 Phil. 723 (2004).
5 CA rollo, p. 404.
6 391 Phil. 648 (2000).
7 Id. at 655-657. (Emphasis supplied.)
8 G.R. No. 159218, March 30, 2004, 426 SCRA 562.
9 Id. at 567-568. (Emphasis supplied.)
10 Abunado v. People, supra note 8; Tenebro v. Court of Appeals, supra note 4,
at 752.
11 Tenebro v. Court of Appeals, supra, at 742.
12 Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. v. Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, Inc.,
G.R. No. 151890, June 20, 2006, 491 SCRA 411, 433.
13 Records, p. 383.
14 G.R. No. 109454, June 14, 1994, 233 SCRA 155.
15 Id. at 161.
16 Abunado v. People, supra note 8, at 568.
17 See Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City in Civil Case No.
00-1217, CA rollo, pp. 343-347.