Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS
This complaint of bigamy filed in court by herein complainant Owen
against defendant Beru, the former’s wife, alleging that the latter having
previously married one man named Lando, and without said marriage having
been dissolved or is still subsisting, contracted a second marriage with said
complainant.
1
ISSUES/QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether the validity of marriage between Beru and Lando is a prejudicial
question to the case of bigamy.
2. Whether the simulated marriage contract signed by Beru and Lando is
considered a valid marriage.
3. Whether, under our Revised Penal Code, the crime of bigamy has been
committed by Beru for contracting a subsequent marriage with Owen when
the former has a previous subsisting marriage with Lando.
BRIEF ANSWER
1. Yes, the validity of the first marriage between Beru and Lando should be
resolved first as it is a prejudicial question to the criminal case of bigamy
filed by her husband Owen since it determines whether or not the criminal
proceeding shall prosper.
2. No, because the essential and formal requisites as provided in the Family
Code for a marriage to be considered valid are absent or not complied with
in the marriage contracted by Beru and Lando.
3. No, Beru cannot be held liable for the crime of bigamy because her first
marriage with Lando is void ab initio hence no previous valid marriage that
is subsisting to speak of being the first requisite for the crime of bigamy to
be committed.
In the same vein, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of People v.
Aragon1 where the accused pending trial of her criminal case of bigamy,
filed a civil action in the same court against the defendant praying that their
marriage be annulled by reason of vitiated consent in her allegation that she
was forced to marry the latter by means of force, threats and intimidation of
bodily harm and such civil action for nullity of marriage must be decided
1
People v. Aragon, G.R. No. L-5930, February 17, 1954.
2
first before the action for bigamy may be determined as then. validity of the
first marriage is a prejudicial question.
In the present case, Beru can institute a civil action on the validity of
marriage with Lando where resolution of such will determine if the criminal
action of bigamy will prosper.
2
§ 7 of Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
3
It bears stressing that the absence of any of the essential and formal
requisites of a valid marriage as mentioned renders the marriage void ab
initio as expressly stated in Article 4 of the Family Code:
From the foregoing facts, Beru and Lando only agreed to sign a
simulated marriage contract to appear to Corde whom the latter impregnated
that he is already married hence the marriage is void as the marriage contract
is neither an essential nor a formal requisite that would constitute a valid
marriage. Assuming arguendo that the act of signing a marriage contract is a
mutual consent declaring themselves as husband and wife, it is still devoid
of merit because of the absence of other essential and formal requisites such
as the consent freely given was not given in the presence of a solemnizing
officer and no marriage ceremony has been conducted before an authorized
solemnizing officer in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal
age. It is to be noted that the signing of such simulated marriage contract
was done privately by the parties themselves.
Furthermore, the parties did not obtain a marriage license prior to the
signing of the contract and their case does not fall on the exemptions of
marriage license requirement provided for in Chapter 2, Title I of the Family
Code3. The marriage of the parties cannot be characterized as among the
exemptions hence their marriage is void ab initio for failing to procure a
marriage license even if there was a marriage contract. The necessity of
securing a marriage license is enunciated in the case of Kho v. Republic4
3
Chapter 2. Marriages Exempted from License Requirement:
Art. 27. In case either or both of the contracting parties are at the point of death, the marriage may be
solemnized without necessity of a marriage license and shall remain valid even if the ailing party
subsequently survives.
Art. 28. If the residence of either party is so located that there is no means of transportation to enable
such party to appear personally before the local civil registrar, the marriage may be solemnized without
necessity of a marriage license.
Art. 33. Marriages among Muslims or among members of the ethnic cultural communities may be
performed validly without the necessity of marriage license, provided they are solemnized in accordance
with their customs, rites or practices.
Art. 34. No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together as
husband and wife for at least five years and without any legal impediment to marry each other. The
contracting parties shall state the foregoing facts in an affidavit before any person authorized by law to
administer oaths. The solemnizing officer shall also state under oath that he ascertained the qualifications
of the contracting parties are found no legal impediment to the marriage.
4
Kho v. Republic, G.R. No. 183896, January 30, 2013.
4
decided by the Supreme Court that it is an authority granted by the State to
the contracting parties after the government has inquired into their capacity
to contract marriage. The court further stressed that the rationale for the
compulsory character of marriage license flows from the State’s
demonstration of its involvement and participation in every marriage in the
maintenance of which the general public is interested.
Thus, the marriage between Beru and Lando is void ab initio for
having failed to comply with the essential and formal requisites of a valid
marriage. The marriage contract as a contract governed by the mentioned
provision in the Civil Code, also strengthens its void or non-existent
character as it was simulated.
The third issue concerns about question on whether Beru can be held
liable for a crime of bigamy as provided in Article 349 of the Revised Penal
Code7 which defines bigamy and penalizes 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. The elements
for bigamy to committed are laid down in the case of Marbella-Bobis v.
Bobis8 which are:
5
Article 1409 of the New Civil Code. The following contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning:
(2) Those which are absolutely simulated or fictitious.
6
Bangayan v. Bangayan Jr., G.R. No. 201061, July 3, 2013.
7
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.
8
Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis, G.R. No. 138509, July 31, 2000.
5
(2) That 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) That he or she contracts a subsequent marriage; and
(4) That the subsequent marriage would have been valid had it
not been for the existence of the first.
COUNTERARGUMENTS
Beru can be held liable since she failed to file a judicial declaration of
nullity of her previous marriage with Lando before she married Owen
pursuant to Article 40 of the Family Code9 which stated:
Applying the provision in the instant case, it is not for the parties to
assume that their marriage is void thus Beru should have filed an action in
court for a judicial declaration of nullity of her marriage with Lando. It
follows that Beru is liable for the crime of bigamy as her marriage with
Lando is still subsisting and has not yet been dissolved when she
subsequently contracted a marriage with Owen.
9
Art. 40. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the
basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.
10
Mercado v. Tan, G.R. No. 137110, August 1, 2000.
6
RESPONSE TO COUNTERARGUMENTS
Also worth noting for to ensure that justice is served, the Court is
mandated to liberally construe a penal statute in favor of an accused and
weigh every circumstance in favor of the presumption of innocence. In the
instant case, Beru contracting the subsequent marriage with Owen was done
in good faith belying the intent to commit the crime of bigamy because of
the fact that she did not intend to marry Lando as evident in the non-
compliance of the essential and formal requisites of a valid marriage. The
registration of simulated marriage contract she signed with Lando has only
come to her knowledge after the complaint of bigamy was filed against her.
Her failure to invoke judicial aid to declare the nullity of her marriage with
Lando is not required due to the absence of essential and formal requisites of
a valid marriage. Thus, Beru cannot be held criminally liable for bigamy.
11
Morigo v. People, G.R. No. 145226, February 6, 2004.
7
CONCLUSION
Beru, our client, cannot be held criminally liable of bigamy since the
applicable rules and jurisprudence as laid out provides strength on the
defense primarily because the simulated marriage contract signed by Beru
and Lando does not constitute a valid marriage for non-compliance with the
essential and formal requisites of a valid marriage. Hence, it negates the
presence of the first requisite of bigamy that the offender has been legally
married when she contracted the subsequent one. It should be emphasized
that there was no legal impediment when Beru subsequently married Owen.
To further give light to the validity of the marriage between Beru and
Lando, we can present the local civil registrar to attest that the marriage
contract has no marriage license number owing to the fact that the two did
not obtain the marriage license prior to their signing of the simulated
marriage contract. Moreover, Lando can also testify that they in fact
simulated the marriage contract on their own and that they did not live as
husband and wife afterwards.