REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 22, QUEZON CITY

YSABEL MIAGAO, Plaintiff,

- versus - CRIMINAL CASE NO. 18-123456

FOR: BIGAMY

ALBERTO MIAGAO, Defendant,

x----------------------------------------------x

DECISION

Before this Court is a complaint against Atty. Alberto Miagao (Alberto) by

his wife Ysabel Miagao (Ysabel) for Bigamy.

ANTECEDENT FACTS
On 09 December 2010, Ysabel contracted marriage with Alberto, a lawyer
and managing partner of the LEB Law Firm in Manila, while Ysabel worked as a
sales executive.

On 16 July 2013, Ysabel went to Davao to check on the local sales agents
and available stock for their back-to-school sale at the different branches of
Florence Department Store, where Ysabel met Carmen whose surname is
“Miagao”, the manager of Florence Department Store. Ysabel was surprised when
she met Carmen; provided that Miagao is an uncommon surname, Ysabel thought
that she already met all of Alberto’s relatives from Pampanga and Italy. During
their conversation, both were surprised to have the same husband. According to
Carmen, they have been married since June 12, 2011 in a civil ceremony which
was solemnized by Judge Juan de la Cruz. Also, Carmen and Alberto has a one
year-old son.

1
Criminal Case No. 18-123456
For: Bigamy
x-------------------------------------------x

Upon Ysabel’s return to Manila, she confronted Alberto about his second
marriage to Carmen. Alberto admitted that he married and had a son with Carmen,
he also claimed that their marriage was not valid for there was no marriage
license, and that he only married Carmen to appease her parents because of
Carmen’s pregnancy.

ISSUE

This Court is bound to resolve whether or not Alberto and Carmen’s

marriage is valid; if affirmative, whether or not Alberto committed bigamy when
he celebrated his subsequent marriage to Carmen when his marriage with Ysabel
is valid and subsisting.

RULING

The marriage of Alberto and Carmen was celebrated on 12 June 2011 which
was solemnized under the provisions of the Family Code. The Family Code
provides the essential and formal requisites of a valid marriage.
The Family Code expressly provides:
Art. 2. No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites
are present:

(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a

male and a female; and

(2) Consent freely given in the presence of a solemnizing

officer.

Art. 3. The formal requisites of marriage are:

(1) Authority of the solemnizing officer;

(2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided

for in Chapter 2 of this Title; and

(3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the

appearance of the contracting parties before the
solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they
take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not
less than two witnesses of legal age.

2
Criminal Case No. 18-123456
For: Bigamy
x-------------------------------------------x

Thus, the contract of marriage is entered into by complying with the

requirements and formalities prescribed by law.1 As marriage is a special contract,
their terms and conditions are not merely subject to the stipulations of the
contracting parties but are governed by law. The absence of any of the essential or
formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, except as stated in
Article 35 (2).2 Hence, the marriage of Alberto and Carmela was invalid for lack
of marriage license as a formal requisite .
In this case, Ysabel accused Alberto for the crime of Bigamy. The Revised
Penal Code provides that:
Art. 349. Bigamy. — The penalty of prision mayor shall be
imposed upon any person who shall contract a second or
subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally
dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared
presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper
proceedings.

In Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis,3the Supreme Court 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.

In Morigo v. People4, the first element of bigamy as a crime requires that

the accused must have been legally married. In the instant case, no marriage
ceremony at all was performed by a duly authorized solemnizing officer and the
mere private act of signing a marriage contract bears no semblance to a valid
marriage. Such act alone, without more, cannot be deemed to constitute an
ostensibly valid marriage for which petitioner might be held liable for bigamy
unless he first secures a judicial declaration of nullity before he contracts a
subsequent marriage.

3
Criminal Case No. 18-123456
For: Bigamy
x-------------------------------------------x

Jurisprudence clearly requires that for the accused to be convicted of

bigamy, the second or subsequent marriage must have all the essential requisites
for validity.5
People v. De Lara as the relevant jurisprudence involve[s] an acquittal for
bigamy on the ground that the second marriage lacked the requisite marriage
license. Thus, since the marriage was celebrated one day before the issuance of the
marriage license, the Court acquitted him of bigamy.6

WHEREFORE, the lack of a marriage license for the subsequent marriage

of the accused may exculpate him from bigamy as it does not satisfy the essential
requisites of a valid marriage. Thus, Atty. Alberto Miagao is hereby ACQUITTED
of the crime Bigamy, due to lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

1
Tilar v. People, G.R. No. 214529, July 12, 2017, available at http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/elibsearch (last
visited September 30, 2018).
2
Tilar v. People, G.R. No. 214529, July 12, 2017, available at http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/elibsearch (last
visited September 30, 2018).
3
Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis, G.R. No. 138509, July 31, 2000 as cited in Morigo v. People, G.R. No. 145226.
February 06, 2004.
4
Morigo v. People, G.R. No. 145226, February 06, 2004.
5
Santiago v . People, G.R. No. 200233, July 15, 2015 citing De la Cruz vs. Ejercito, G.R. No. L-40895, November
6, 1975.
6
People v De Lara, as cited in Santiago v . People, G.R. No. 200233, July 15, 2015.