Digest Author: Arcellana
ambivalent such that a person was allowed to enter a subsequent
Montanez v. Cipriano (2012)
Petitioner: Merlinda Montanes
Respondent: Lourdes Cipriano
DOCTRINE: The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the first
marriage would not change the fact that she contracted the second
marriage during the substistence of the first marriage.
FACTS:
1. Respondent Cipriano married Socrates on 1976 in Aklan. On 1983,
respondent married Silverio Cipriano during the subsistence of the first
marriage.
2. Respondent then filed a Petition for Annulment of her first marriage with
Socrates on the grounds of psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the
Family Code. Such marriage was then declared null and void.
3. Petitioner, Silverios daughter from a previous marriage, filed a case for
Bigamy against Respondent. This was with an affidavit stating that
respondent failed to reveal to Silverio that she was still married to
Socrates.
4. Respondent then alleged that her marriage with Socrates had already
been declared void and thus there was no more marriage to speak of.
5. The prosecution argued that bigamy was already consummated upon filing
the declaration for nullity.
6. RTC denied respondents motion, saying that petitioner had already
committed bigamy and that such action has not yet prescribed.
7. Respondent filed an MR, claiming that the RTCs legal basis
(jurisprudence) was not applicable since the first marriage was contracted
before the Family Code and that the annulment was granted before the
complaint for bigamy was filed.
8. RTC ruled that at the time accused had contracted the 2 nd marriage before
the effectivity of the Family Code, the existing law did not require a judicial
declaration of absolute nullity as a condition precedent to contracting a
subsequent marriage.
9. It also found that both marriages of respondent was done before the
Family Code, thus laws should be interpreted liberally for the accused.
Therefore the absence of a judicial declaration should not prejudice the
accused whose second marriage was considered valid.
ISSUES:
1. WON the declaration of nullity of respondents first marriage justifies the
dismissal of the Information for bigamy filed against respondent.
2. WON the RTC erred in stating that the jurisprudence prior to the Family
Code and in Wiegel regarding the necessity of a declaration of nullity is
marriage without annulment of the first, without incurring criminal
liability.
RULING + RATIO:
1. No. respondent is liable for bigamy
The elements of bigamy are that: a) offender has been legally married b)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 c) he contracts a
subsequent marriage, and d) the subsequent marriage has all the requisites
for validity. It is consummated on the celebration of the subsequent marriage.
What is essential for the prosecution of bigamy is that the alleged second
marriage, having all the requirements, would be valid were it not for the
subsistence of the first marriage.
In this case, when respondent contracted the 2 nd marriage with Silverio, her 1st
marriage was still subsisting and had not been declared annulled or void. Thus
all elements of bigamy were alleged in the Information. Based on the
Information, the annulment of the 1st marriage was only declared in 2003.
In several cases, it was held that the subsequent judicial declaration of nullity
of the 1st marriage was immaterial because prior to the declaration, the bigamy
had already been consummated. Even if the accused eventually obtained a
declaration that his first marriage was void ab initio, the point is, the first and
second marriage were subsisting. The moment the accused contracted a 2 nd
marriage without the previous one being judicially declared null and void,
bigamy was already consummated. Here, at the time of the 2 nd marriage, the
first was still subsisting. Thus bigamy was properly charge to her.
Respondent calims that the legal basis is not applicable since the declaration
of nullity came before the filinf of information. But what makes a person
criminally liable for bigamy is when he contracts a 2 nd marriage during the
subsistence of the first.
2. No.
In this case, respondent wants to obtain a judicial declaration of nullity of the
first marriage and invoke it to prevent prosecution for bigamy. Such is not
possible. A party may evnter into a marriage license and therafter contract a
subsequent marriage without obtaining a declaration of nullity of the first on
the assumption that the first marriage is void.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, considering the foregoing, the petition is
GRANTED.