|
CENON R. TEVES, Petitioner, - versus - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and DANILO R. BONGALON, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 188775
Present: CARPIO,
Chairperson, BRION PERALTA* PEREZ,
and MENDOZA,** JJ. Promulgated: August 24, 2011 |
|
|
|
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
PEREZ, J.:
This
Petition for Review seeks the reversal of the 21 January 2009 decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 31125 affirming in toto the decision of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 20, Malolos City in Criminal Case No. 2070-M-2006. The RTC decision[2]
found petitioner Cenon R. Teves guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Bigamy penalized under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.
THE FACTS
On
26 November 1992, a marriage was solemnized between Cenon Teves (Cenon) and
Thelma Jaime-Teves (Thelma) at the Metropolitan Trial Court of Muntinlupa City,
Metro Manila.[3]
After
the marriage, Thelma left to work abroad. She would only come home to the Philippines
for vacations. While on a vacation in
2002, she was informed that her husband had contracted marriage with a certain
Edita Calderon (Edita). To verify the
information, she went to the National Statistics Office and secured a copy of
the Certificate of Marriage[4]
indicating that her husband and Edita contracted marriage on 10 December 2001
at the Divine Trust Consulting Services, Malhacan, Meycauayan, Bulacan.
On
13 February 2006, Danilo Bongalon, uncle of Thelma, filed before the Office of
the Provincial Prosecutor of Malolos City, Bulacan a complaint[5]
accusing petitioner of committing bigamy.
Petitioner
was charged on 8 June 2006 with bigamy defined and penalized under Article 349
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in an Information[6]
which reads:
That on or
about the 10th day of December, 2001 up to the present, in the
municipality of Meycauayan, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said Cenon R. Teves being previously
united in lawful marriage on November 26, 1992 with Thelma B. Jaime and without
the said marriage having legally dissolved, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously contract a second marriage with one Edita T.
Calderon, who knowing of the criminal design of accused Cenon R. Teves to marry
her and in concurrence thereof, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously cooperate in the execution of the offense by marrying Cenon R.
Teves, knowing fully well of the existence of the marriage of the latter with
Thelma B. Jaime.
During
the pendency of the criminal case for bigamy, the Regional Trial Court , Branch
130, Caloocan City, rendered a decision[7] dated 4 May 2006 declaring the marriage of
petitioner and Thelma null and void on the ground that Thelma is physically
incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations pursuant to
Article 36 of the Family Code. Said decision became final by virtue of a
Certification of Finality[8]
issued on 27 June 2006.
On
15 August 2007, the trial court rendered its assailed decision, the dispositive
portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered finding the accused Cenon R. Teves, also known as Cenon Avelino R.
Teves, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Bigamy penalized under
Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, as charged in the Information dated June
8, 2006. Pursuant to the provisions of
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to six
(6) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor, as maximum.[9]
Refusing
to accept such verdict, petitioner appealed the decision before the Court of
Appeals contending that the court a quo
erred in not ruling that his criminal action or liability had already been
extinguished. He also claimed that the
trial court erred in finding him guilty of Bigamy despite the defective
Information filed by the prosecution.[10]
On
21 January 2009, the CA promulgated its decision, the dispositive portion of
which reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the Decision
dated August 15, 2007 in Criminal Case No. 2070-M-2006 is AFFIRMED in TOTO.[11]
On
11 February 2009, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the
decision.[12] This however, was denied by the CA in a
resolution issued on 2 July 2009.[13]
Hence,
this petition.
Petitioner
claims that since his previous marriage was declared null and void, there is
in effect no marriage at all, and thus, there is no bigamy to speak of.[14] He differentiates a previous valid or voidable
marriage from a marriage null and void ab
initio, and posits that the former requires a judicial dissolution before
one can validly contract a second marriage but a void marriage, for the same
purpose, need not be judicially determined.
Petitioner
further contends that the ruling of the Court in Mercado v. Tan[15] is
inapplicable in his case because in the Mercado
case the prosecution for bigamy was initiated before the declaration of nullity
of marriage was filed. In petitioners
case, the first marriage had already been legally dissolved at the time the
bigamy case was filed in court.
We
find no reason to disturb the findings of the CA. There is nothing in the law that would
sustain petitioners contention.
Article
349 of the Revised Penal Code states:
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.
The elements of this crime are as follows:
1. That the offender has been legally married;
2. That 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 according to the
Civil Code;
3. That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and
4. That the second or subsequent marriage has all the
essential requisites for validity.[16]
The
instant case has all the elements of the crime of bigamy. Thus, the CA was correct in affirming the
conviction of petitioner.
Petitioner
was legally married to Thelma on 26 November 1992 at the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Muntinlupa City. He contracted
a second or subsequent marriage with Edita on 10 December 2001 in Meycauayan, Bulacan. At the time of his second marriage with
Edita, his marriage with Thelma was legally subsisting. It is noted that the finality of the decision
declaring the nullity of his first marriage with Thelma was only on 27 June
2006 or about five (5) years after his second marriage to Edita. Finally, the second or subsequent marriage of
petitioner with Edita has all the essential requisites for validity. Petitioner has in fact not disputed the
validity of such subsequent marriage.[17]
It
is evident therefore that petitioner has committed the crime charged. His contention that he cannot be charged with
bigamy in view of the declaration of nullity of his first marriage is bereft of
merit. The Family Code has settled once
and for all the conflicting jurisprudence on the matter. A declaration of the absolute nullity of a
marriage is now explicitly required either as a cause of action or a ground for
defense. Where the absolute nullity of a
previous marriage is sought to be invoked for purposes of contracting a second
marriage, the sole basis acceptable in law for said projected marriage to be
free from legal infirmity is a final judgment declaring the previous marriage
void.[18]
The
Family Law Revision Committee and the Civil Code Revision Committee which drafted
what is now the Family Code of the Philippines took the position that parties
to a marriage should not be allowed to assume that their marriage is void even
if such be the fact but must first secure a judicial declaration of the nullity
of their marriage before they can be allowed to marry again.[19]
In
fact, the requirement for a declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage is
also for the protection of the spouse who, believing that his or her marriage
is illegal and void, marries again. With
the judicial declaration of the nullity of his or her marriage, the person who
marries again cannot be charged with bigamy.[20]
In
numerous cases,[21] this Court has
consistently held that a judicial declaration of nullity is required before a
valid subsequent marriage can be contracted; or else, what transpires is a
bigamous marriage, reprehensible and immoral.
If
petitioners contention would be allowed,
a person who commits bigamy can simply evade prosecution by immediately filing
a petition for the declaration of nullity of his earlier marriage and hope that
a favorable decision is rendered therein before anyone institutes a complaint
against him. We note that in
petitioners case the complaint was filed before the first marriage was
declared a nullity. It was only the
filing of the Information that was overtaken by the declaration of nullity of
his first marriage. Following petitioners
argument, even assuming that a complaint has been instituted, such as in this
case, the offender can still escape liability provided that a decision
nullifying his earlier marriage precedes the filing of the Information in
court. Such cannot be allowed. To do so would make the crime of bigamy
dependent upon the ability or inability of the Office of the Public Prosecutor
to immediately act on complaints and eventually file Informations in court. Plainly, petitioners strained reading of the
law is against its simple letter.
Settled
is the rule that criminal culpability attaches to the offender upon the
commission of the offense, and from that instant, liability appends to him
until extinguished as provided by law, and that the time of filing of the
criminal complaint (or Information, in proper cases) is material only for
determining prescription.[22]
The crime of bigamy was committed by petitioner on 10 December 2001 when he
contracted a second marriage with Edita. The finality on 27 June 2006 of the
judicial declaration of the nullity of his previous marriage to Thelma cannot
be made to retroact to the date of the bigamous marriage.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for
review is DENIED and the assailed
Decision dated 21 January 2009 of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED in toto.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
|
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice |
|||||
|
WE CONCUR: ANTONIO T.
CARPIO
Associate Justice Chairperson |
|||||
|
|
||||
* Per Special Order No. 1067 dated 23 August 2011.
** Per Special Order No. 1066 dated 23 August 2011.
[1] Penned
by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato. Jr., and Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now a member of this
Court) and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 75-86.
[2] Records,
pp. 156-162.
[3] Id. at 13.
[4] Id. at 11.
[5] Id. at 6.
[6] Id. at
2.
[7] Id. at 82-90.
[8] Id. at 91-92.
[9] Id. at 162.
[10] CA rollo, p.
25. Appellants Brief.
[11] Id. at 85.
[12] Id. at 89-99.
[13] Id.
at 114-115.
[14] Rollo, p. 24
[15] G.R. No. 137110, 1 August 2000, 337
SCRA 122.
[16] Tenebro
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150758, 18 February 2004 423 SCRA, 272, 279 citing Reyes, L.B., the Revised Penal Code, Book II, 14th Ed., 1998, p. 907.
[17] CA rollo, p. 62.
[18] Domingo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
104818, 17 September 1993, 226 SCRA 572, 579.
[19] Id.
at 579-580.
[20] Id.
at 582, citing J.A.V. Sempio-Diy, Handbook of the Family Code of the
Philippines, p. 46 (1988).
[21] A.M. No. 2008-20-SC, 15 March 2010,
615 SCRA 186, 198-199, Re: Complaint of
Mrs. Corazon S. Salvador
against Sps. Noel and Amelia Serafico citing Morigo v. People, G.R. No. 145226, 6 February 2004, 422 SCRA 376; Domingo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 194818, 17 September 1993, 226 SCRA 572; Terre v. Terre, A.C. No. 2349, 3 July 1992, 211 SCRA 7; Wiegel v. Sempio-Diy,
No. L-53703, 19 August 1986, 143 SCRA 499; Vda.
De Consuegra v. Government Service
Insurance System, No. L-28093, 30 January 1971, 37 SCRA 315; Gomez v. Lipana, No. L- 23214, 30 June 1970, 33 SCRA 614.
[22] De Jesus v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
101630, 24 August 1992, 212 SCRA 823, 830.