Article 347.

Simulation of births, substitution of one child for another, and

concealment or abandonment of a legitimate child.

Acts punishable:

1. Simulation of births;

2. Substitution of one child for another;

3. Concealing or abandoning any legitimate child with intent to cause such child
to lose its civil status.

Elements:

a. the child must be legitimate;

b. the offender conceals or abandons such child; and

c. the offender has the intent to cause such child to lose its civil
status.

 The object of the crime is the creation of false, or the causing of the loss
of, civil status.

 Example of simulation of birth: a woman pretends to be pregnant when

in fact she is not, and on the day of the supposed delivery, takes the child
of another as her own.

 The fact that the child will be benefited by the simulation of birth is not a
defense

 Example of substituting one child for another: A and B both gave birth
on the same day. The nurse in the hospital exchanges the children of A
and B in the nursery.

 Abandon – leaving a child in a place where other people may find it,
causing the child to lose its status.

 Example of concealing or abandoning: A mother who leaves her child

at the door of an orphanage.

 A physician or surgeon or public officer, who cooperates in the execution

of these crimes, is also liable if he acts in violation of the duties of his
profession or office.
People vs. Sangalang

The Sangalang spouses together with Gloria and Bienvenido were charged of the crime
of simulation of birth. The 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
certificate would be issued. He named the Sangalangs as the child’s parents. A birth
certificate was hence issued. Information did not contain any specific allegation as to
what the spouses did, except that they had conspired with Gloria and Bienvenido.

HELD: In the crime of simulation of births, it must be shown that the “pretending
parents” have registered or caused in the registration of the child as their own with the
Registry of Births, or that in doing so they were motivated by a desire to cause the loss
of any trace as to the child’s true filiation to his prejudice.

In the instant case, SC found no evidence to sport the finding of TC that the registration
was effected by the Sangalangs. As the evidence would show, it was their daughter
Alicia (not Bienvenido, but still not the spouses) who had a hand in the registration of
the child).

Article 348. Usurpation of civil status

 Committed when a person usurps the civil status of another, by assuming

the filiation, or the parental or conjugal rights of another.

 The term ‘civil status’ includes one’s public station, or the rights, duties,
capacities and incapacities which determine a person to a given classs.

 Usurpation of profession may be punished under this article.

 There must be intent to enjoy the rights arising from the civil status of
another, otherwise the case will be considered only as using a fictitious
name, or as estafa, depending on the facts of the case.

 The purpose of defrauding the offended party or his heirs qualifies the
crime.

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.

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 Arceño 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 Biñas. 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.
1. 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 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?!?).