Title Twelve hospital exchanges the children of A and B

CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF in the nursery.

PERSONS Abandon leaving a child in a
place where other people may find it,
Chapter One. SIMULATION OF BIRTHS AND causing the child to lose its status.
USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS Example of concealing or
Article 347. Simulation of births, substitution of
abandoning: A mother who leaves her
one child at the door of an orphanage.
child for another, and concealment or A physician or surgeon or
abandonment of a legitimate child public officer, who cooperates in the
Article 348. Usurpation of civil status execution of these crimes, is also liable if
he acts in violation of the duties of his
Chapter Two ILLEGAL MARRIAGES profession or office.
Article 349. Bigamy
Article 350. Marriage contracted against
provisions of People vs. Sangalang
laws
Article 351. Premature marriages The Sangalang spouses together with Gloria and Bienvenido
Article 352. Performance of illegal marriage were charged of the crime of simulation of birth. The
ceremony information alleged that a child was furnished by Gloria to
the Sangalangs. Accused Bienvenido registered the birth of
said child in the local civil registrar by supplying to said
office the necessary information required so that a birth
Article 347. Simulation of births, certificate would be issued. He named the Sangalangs as
substitution of one child for another, and the childs parents. A birth certificate was hence issued.
Information did not contain any specific allegation as to
concealment or abandonment of a
what the spouses did, except that they had conspired with
legitimate child. Gloria and Bienvenido.

Acts punishable: HELD: In the crime of simulation of births, it must be

shown that the pretending parents have registered or
1. Simulation of births; caused in the registration of the child as their own with the
2. Substitution of one child for Registry of Births, or that in doing so they were motivated
another; by a desire to cause the loss of any trace as to the childs
true filiation to his prejudice.
3. Concealing or abandoning any
legitimate child with intent to cause such In the instant case, SC found no evidence to sport the
child to lose its civil status. finding of TC that the registration was effected by the
Sangalangs. As the evidence would show, it was their
Elements: daughter Alicia (not Bienvenido, but still not the spouses)
who had a hand in the registration of the child).
a. the child must be
legitimate;
b. the offender conceals Article 348. Usurpation of civil status
or abandons such child; and
c. the offender has the Committed when a person
intent to cause such child to lose its usurps the civil status of another, by
civil status. assuming the filiation, or the parental or
conjugal rights of another.
The object of the crime is the The term civil status includes
creation of false, or the causing of the loss ones public station, or the rights, duties,
of, civil status. capacities and incapacities which
Example of simulation of determine a person to a given classs.
birth: a woman pretends to be pregnant Usurpation of profession may
when in fact she is not, and on the day of be punished under this article.
the supposed delivery, takes the child of There must be intent to enjoy
another as her own. the rights arising from the civil status of
The fact that the child will be another, otherwise the case will be
benefited by the simulation of birth is not a considered only as using a fictitious name,
defense or as estafa, depending on the facts of the
Example of substituting one case.
child for another: A and B both gave The purpose of defrauding the
birth on the same day. The nurse in the offended party or his heirs qualifies the
crime.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

152

Article 349. Bigamy
Elements:
1. Offender has been legally married;
2. The marriage has not been legally
dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is
absent, the absent spouse could not yet be
presumed dead by means of a judgment
rendered in a proper proceedings,
according to the Civil Code;
3. He contracts a second or
subsequent marriage;
4. The second or subsequent
marriage has all the essential requisites for
validity.
Nullity of the first marriage is
not a defense in a bigamy charge. There
must be a judicial declaration of the nullity
of a previous marriage before contracting
the second marriage.
Causes which may produce the
legal dissolution of the first marriage:
o Death of one of the
contracting parties
o Judicial declaration
annulling a void marriage
o Judicial declaration
annulling a voidable marriage
Defense has the burden of
proof of dissolution of first marriage.
For the present spouse to
contract a subsequent marriage, an absent
spouse is presumed dead if he has been
absent for four consecutive years and the
spouse present had a well-founded belief
that he is already dead. In case of
disappearance where there is danger of
death, an absence of only two years will be
sufficient. However, a declaration of
presumptive death should first be obtained
from the courts.
The second marriage must
have all the requisites for validity were it
not for the existence of the first marriage.
The second spouse is not
necessarily liable for the bigamy. If the
second husband or wife knew of the first
marriage, he/she is an accomplice in the
crime of bigamy.
The witness who falsely
vouched for the capacity of either of the
contracting parties is also an accomplice.
Bigamy is not a private crime.
It is an offense against the State, not
against the second wife.
A person convicted of bigamy
may still be prosecuted for concubinage.
People vs. Aragon
Aragon contracted a 2nd marriage while the first marriage
was still subsisting. Eventually the first wife died. He
contracted a third marriage. Aragon was charged of
bigamy.
HELD: A subsequent marriage contracted by any person
during the lifetime of his first spouse is illegal and void
from its performance, and no judicial decree is necessary
to establish its invalidity as distinguished from mere
annullable marriages. The second marriage is void, hence
the third marriage is valid.
Article 350. Marriage contracted against
provisions of laws
Elements:
1. Offender contracted marriage;
2. He knew at the time that -
a. The requirements of
the law were not complied with; or
b. The marriage was in
disregard of a legal impediment.
If either of the contracting
parties obtains the consent of the other by
means of violence, intimidation or fraud,
the maximum period of the penalty shall
be imposed.
The offender must not be guilty
of bigamy, to be punishable under this
article.
Lucio Morigo v People (2002)
FACTS: Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were
boardmates. After school year 1977-78 they lost
contact with each other. In 1984, Lucio Morigo was
surprised to receive a card from Lucia Barrete from
Singapore. The former replied and after an exchange of
letters, they became sweethearts. In 1986, Lucia
returned to the Philippines but left again for Canada to
work there. While in Canada, they maintained constant
communication. In 1990, Lucia came back to the
Philippines and proposed to Lucio to join her in Canada.
Both agreed to get married. On September 8, 1990,
Lucia reported back to her work in Canada leaving
appellant Lucio behind. On August 19, 1991, Lucia filed
with the Ontario Court for divorce which was granted
on January 17, 1992. On October 4, 1992, appellant
Lucio Morigo married Maria Jececha Lumbago. On
September 21, 1993, accused filed a complaint for
judicial declaration of nullity of marriage in the RTC.
On October 19, 1993, Lucio was charged with Bigamy
and found guilty thereon.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
153
 HELD: The primordial issue should be whether
or not petitioner committed bigamy and if so, whether
his defense of good faith is valid. In Marbella-Bobis v.
Bobis, we laid down the elements of bigamy thus:
(1) the offender has been legally
married;
(2) the first marriage has not been
legally dissolved, or in case his or her spouse
is absent, the absent spouse
has not been judicially declared
presumptively dead;
(3) he contracts a subsequent
marriage; and
(4) the subsequent marriage would
have been valid had it not been for the existence of
the first. aDcTHE
Applying the foregoing test to the instant
case, we note that the trial court found that there was
no actual marriage ceremony performed between Lucio
and Lucia by a solemnizing officer. Instead, what
transpired was a mere signing of the marriage contract
by the two, without the presence of a solemnizing
officer.
The first element of bigamy as a crime
requires that the accused must have been legally
married. But in this case, legally speaking, the
petitioner was never married to Lucia Barrete. Thus,
there is no first marriage to speak of. Under the
principle of retroactivity of a marriage being declared
void ab initio, the two were never married from the
beginning. The contract of marriage is null; it bears no
legal effect. Taking this argument to its logical
conclusion, for legal purposes, petitioner was not
married to Lucia at the time he contracted the
marriage with Maria Jececha. The existence and the
validity of the first marriage being an essential element
of the crime of bigamy, it is but logical that a
conviction for said offense cannot be sustained where
there is no first marriage to speak of. The petitioner,
must, perforce be acquitted of the instant charge.
Abunado v. People (2004)
FACTS: September 18, 1967 Salvador married
Narcisa Arceo at the Manila City Hall before Rev. Pedro
Tiangco. In 1988 Narcisa left for Japan to work but
returned to the Philippines in 1992, Narcisa found
Salvador in Quezon City cohabiting with Fe Corazon
Plato. She also discovered that on January 10, 1989,
Salvador contracted a second marriage with a certain
Zenaida Bias. An annulment case was filed by Salvador
against Narcisa. A case for bigamy was filed by Narcisa
against Salvador and Zenaida.
Salvador admitted that he first married
Zenaida on December 24, 1955 before a municipal trial
court judge in Concepcion, Iloilo and has four children
with her prior to their separation in 1966. It appeared
however that there was no evidence of their 1955
marriage so he and Zenaida remarried on January 10,
1989, upon the request of their son for the purpose of
complying with the requirements for his commission in
the military. The trial court convicted petitioner
Salvador Abunado of bigamy.
HELD: Abunado claims that his petition for
annulment/declaration of nullity of marriage was a
prejudicial question, hence, the proceedings in the
bigamy case should have been suspended during the
pendency of the annulment case. Petitioner, in fact,
eventually obtained a judicial declaration of nullity of
his marriage to Narcisa on October 29, 1999. 15
The subsequent judicial declaration of the
nullity of the first marriage was immaterial because
prior to the declaration of nullity, the crime had
already been consummated. Moreover, petitioner's
assertion would only delay the prosecution of bigamy
cases considering that an accused could simply file a
petition to declare his previous marriage void and
invoke the pendency of that action as a prejudicial
question in the criminal case. We cannot allow that. 17
The outcome of the civil case for annulment
of petitioner's marriage to Narcisa had no bearing upon
the determination of petitioner's innocence or guilt in
the criminal case for bigamy, because all that is
required for the charge of bigamy to prosper is that the
first marriage be subsisting at the time the second
marriage is contracted.
Thus, under the law, a marriage, even one
which is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid until
declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding. In this
case, even if petitioner eventually obtained a
declaration that his first marriage was void ab initio,
the point is, both the first and the second marriage
were subsisting before the first marriage was annulled.
Diego v. Castillo (2004)
FACTS: On January 9, 1965, Lucena Escoto
contracted marriage with Jorge de Perio, Jr. The couple
were both Filipinos. In the marriage contract, the
accused used and adopted the name Crescencia Escoto,
with a civil status of single. In a document dated
February 15, 1978, denominated as a Decree of
Divorce purportedly issued by an American court,
Crescencia de Perio was granted a Divorce from Jorge.
Subsequently, Crescencia Escoto contracted marriage
with Manuel P. Diego. The marriage contract shows that
this time, the accused used and adopted the name
Lucena Escoto, again, with a civil status of single.
Later, a case for bigamy was filed against her by her
brother in law.
After trial of the criminal case for bigamy,
Judge Castillo promulgated a decision stating that the
main basis for the acquittal was good faith on the part
of the accused. Judge Castillo gave credence to the
defense of the accused that she acted without any
malicious intent. The evidence he averred gave
accused Lucena Escoto sufficient grounds to believe
that her previous marriage had been validly dissolved
by the divorce decree and that she was legally free to
contract the second marriage with Manuel P. Diego.
HELD: A careful study of the disputed
decision reveals that respondent Judge had been less
than circumspect in his study of the law and
jurisprudence applicable to the bigamy case. In his
comment, respondent Judge stated: That the accused
married Manuel P. Diego in the honest belief that she
was free to do so by virtue of the decree of divorce is a
mistake of fact.
This Court, in People v. Bitdu, carefully
distinguished between a mistake of fact, which could
be a basis for the defense of good faith in a bigamy
case, from a mistake of law, which does not excuse a
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
154
person, even a lay person, from liability. Bitdu held
that even if the accused, who had obtained a divorce
under the Mohammedan custom, honestly believed that
in contracting her second marriage she was not
committing any violation of the law, and that she had
no criminal intent, the same does not justify her act.
This Court further stated therein that with respect to
the contention that the accused acted in good faith in
contracting the second marriage, believing that she
had been validly divorced from her first husband, it is
sufficient to say that everyone is presumed to know the
law, and the fact that one does not know that his act
constitutes a violation of the law does not exempt him
from the consequences thereof.
Moreover, squarely applicable to the criminal
case for bigamy, is People v. Schneckenburger, where it
was held that the accused who secured a foreign
divorce, and later remarried in the Philippines, in the
belief that the foreign divorce was valid, is liable for
bigamy.

Article 351. Premature marriages

Persons liable:

1. A widow who is married within 301

days from the date of the death of her
husband, or before having delivered if she
is pregnant at the time of his death;
2. A woman who, her marriage having
been annulled or dissolved, married before
her delivery or before the expiration of the
period of 301 days after the date of the
legal separation.

Reason behind the law: to

prevent doubtful paternity, because the
woman might have conceived and become
pregnant by her previous husband.
The period of 301 days may be
disregarded if the first husband was
impotent or sterile.

Article 352. Performance of illegal

marriage ceremony

Priests or ministers of any

religious denomination or sect, or civil
authorities who shall perform or authorize
any illegal marriage ceremony
The offender must be
authorized to solemnize marriages. If the
accused is not authorized, he is liable
under article 177 (usurpation of authority
or official functions)
Offender is punished under the
marriage law (there is such a law?!?).

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

155