G.R. No.

181089 October 22, 2012 On July 24, 2007 and before her arraignment, respondent, through counsel, filed a
Motion to Quash Information (and Dismissal of the Criminal Complaint)12
MERLINDA CIPRIANO MONTAÑES, Complainant, alleging that her marriage with Socrates had already been declared void ab initio
vs. in 2003, thus, there was no more marriage to speak of prior to her marriage to
LOURDES TAJOLOSA CIPRIANO, Respondent. Silverio on January 24, 1983; that the basic element of the crime of bigamy, i.e.,
two valid marriages, is therefore wanting. She also claimed that since the second
DECISION marriage was held in 1983, the crime of bigamy had already prescribed. The
prosecution filed its Comment13 arguing that the crime of bigamy had already been
PERALTA, J.: consummated when respondent filed her petition for declaration of nullity; that
the law punishes the act of contracting a second marriage which appears to be
For our resolution is a petition for review on certiorari which seeks to annul the valid, while the first marriage is still subsisting and has not yet been annulled or
Order1 dated September 24, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pedro, declared void by the court.
Laguna, Branch 31, issued in Criminal Case No. 4990-SPL which dismissed the
lnformation for Bigamy filed against respondent Lourdes Tajolosa Cipriano. Also In its Order14 dated August 3, 2007, the RTC denied the motion. It found
assailed is the RTC Resolution2 dated January 2, 2008 denying the motion for respondent's argument that with the declaration of nullity of her first marriage,
reconsideration. there was no more first marriage to speak of and thus the element of two valid
marriages in bigamy was absent, to have been laid to rest by our ruling in
On April 8, 1976, respondent married Socrates Flores (Socrates) in Lezo, Aklan.3 Mercado v. Tan15 where we held:
On January 24, 1983, during the subsistence of the said marriage, respondent
married Silverio V. Cipriano (Silverio) in San Pedro, Laguna.4 In 2001, In the instant case, petitioner contracted a second marriage although there was yet
respondent filed with the RTC of Muntinlupa, Branch no judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage. In fact, he instituted the
Petition to have the first marriage declared void only after complainant had filed a
256, a Petition for the Annulment of her marriage with Socrates on the ground of letter-complaint charging him with bigamy. For contracting a second marriage
the latter’s psychological incapacity as defined under Article 36 of the Family
while the first is still subsisting, he committed the acts punishable under Article
Code, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 01-204. On July 18, 2003, the RTC 349 of the Revised Penal Code.
of Muntinlupa, Branch 256, rendered an Amended Decision5 declaring the
marriage of respondent with Socrates null and void. Said decision became final That he subsequently obtained a judicial declaration of the nullity of the first
and executory on October 13, 2003.6 marriage was immaterial. To repeat, the crime had already been consummated by
then. x x x16
On May 14, 2004, petitioner Merlinda Cipriano Montañez, Silverio’s daughter
from the first marriage, filed with the Municipal Trial Court of San Pedro, As to respondent's claim that the action had already prescribed, the RTC found
Laguna, a Complaint7 for Bigamy against respondent, which was docketed as that while the second marriage indeed took place in 1983, or more than the 15-
Criminal Case No. 41972. Attached to the complaint was an Affidavit8 (Malayang year prescriptive period for the crime of bigamy, the commission of the crime was
Sinumpaang Salaysay) dated August 23, 2004, thumb-marked and signed by only discovered on November 17, 2004, which should be the reckoning period,
Silverio,9 which alleged, among others, that respondent failed to reveal to Silverio hence, prescription has not yet set in.
that she was still married to Socrates. On November 17, 2004, an Information10 for
Bigamy was filed against respondent with the RTC of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration17 claiming that the Mercado ruling
31. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 4990-SPL. The Information was not applicable, since respondent contracted her first marriage in 1976, i.e.,
reads: before the Family Code; that the petition for annulment was granted and became
final before the criminal complaint for bigamy was filed; and, that Article 40 of
That on or about January 24, 1983, in the Municipality of San Pedro, Province of the Family Code cannot be given any retroactive effect because this will impair
Laguna, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said her right to remarry without need of securing a declaration of nullity of a
accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously contract a second completely void prior marriage.
or subsequent marriage with one SILVERIO CIPRIANO VINALON while her
first marriage with SOCRATES FLORES has not been judicially dissolved by On September 24, 2007, the RTC issued its assailed Order,18 the dispositive
proper judicial authorities.11 portion of which reads:
Wherefore, the Order of August 3, 2007 is reconsidered and set aside. Let a new Notwithstanding, we will give due course to this petition as we had done in the
one be entered quashing the information. Accordingly, let the instant case be past. In Antone v. Beronilla,21 the offended party (private complainant) questioned
DISMISSED. before the Court of Appeals (CA) the RTC's dismissal of the Information for
bigamy filed against her husband, and the CA dismissed the petition on the
SO ORDERED. ground, among others, that the petition should have been filed in behalf of the
In so ruling, the RTC said that at the time the accused had contracted a second People of the Philippines by the OSG, being its statutory counsel in all appealed
marriage on January 24, 1983, i.e., before the effectivity of the Family Code, the criminal cases. In a petition filed with us, we said that we had given due course to
existing law did not require a judicial declaration of absolute nullity as a condition a number of actions even when the respective interests of the government were
precedent to contracting a subsequent marriage; that jurisprudence before the not properly represented by the OSG and said:
Family Code was ambivalent on the issue of the need of prior judicial declaration In Labaro v. Panay, this Court dealt with a similar defect in the following manner:
of absolute nullity of the first marriage. The RTC found that both marriages of
respondent took place before the effectivity of the Family Code, thus, considering It must, however, be stressed that if the public prosecution is aggrieved by any
the unsettled state of jurisprudence on the need for a prior declaration of absolute order ruling of the trial judge in a criminal case, the OSG, and not the prosecutor,
nullity of marriage before commencing a second marriage and the principle that must be the one to question the order or ruling before us. x x x
laws should be interpreted liberally in favor of the accused, it declared that the
absence of a judicial declaration of nullity should not prejudice the accused whose Nevertheless, since the challenged order affects the interest of the State or the
second marriage was declared once and for all valid with the annulment of her plaintiff People of the Philippines, we opted not to dismiss the petition on this
first marriage by the RTC of Muntinlupa City in 2003. technical ground. Instead, we required the OSG to comment on the petition, as we
had done before in some cases. In light of its Comment, we rule that the OSG has
Dissatisfied, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed by the prosecution, but ratified and adopted as its own the instant petition for the People of the
opposed by respondent. In a Resolution dated January 2, 2008, the RTC denied Philippines. (Emphasis supplied)22
the same ruling, among others, that the judicial declaration of nullity of
respondent's marriage is tantamount to a mere declaration or confirmation that Considering that we also required the OSG to file a Comment on the petition,
which it did, praying that the petition be granted in effect, such Comment had
said marriage never existed at all, and for this reason, her act in contracting a
second marriage cannot be considered criminal. ratified the petition filed with us.

Aggrieved, petitioner directly filed the present petition with us raising the As to the merit of the petition, the issue for resolution is whether or not the RTC
following issues: erred in quashing the Information for bigamy filed against respondent.

I. Whether the judicial nullity of a first marriage prior to the enactment of the Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes bigamy as follow:
Family Code and the pronouncement in Wiegel vs. Sempio-Diy on the ground of Art. 349. Bigamy. – The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any
psychological incapacity is a valid defense for a charge of bigamy for entering person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former
into a second marriage prior to the enactment of the Family Code and the marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared
pronouncement in Wiegel vs. Sempio-Diy? presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings.
II. Whether the trial court erred in stating that the jurisprudence prior to the The elements of the crime of bigamy are: (a) the offender has been legally
enactment of the Family Code and the pronouncement in Wiegel vs. Sempio-Diy married; (b) the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her
regarding the necessity of securing a declaration of nullity of the first marriage spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to
before entering a second marriage ambivalent, such that a person was allowed to the Civil Code; (c) that he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and (d) the
enter a subsequent marriage without the annulment of the first without incurring second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. The
criminal liability.19 felony is consummated on the celebration of the second marriage or subsequent
Preliminarily, we note that the instant petition assailing the RTC's dismissal of the marriage.23 It is essential in the prosecution for bigamy that the alleged second
Information for bigamy was filed by private complainant and not by the Office of marriage, having all the essential requirements, would be valid were it not for the
the Solicitor General (OSG) which should represent the government in all judicial subsistence of the first marriage.24
proceedings filed before us.20
In this case, it appears that when respondent contracted a second marriage with is, therefore, a recognition written into the law itself that such a marriage,
Silverio in 1983, her first marriage with Socrates celebrated in 1976 was still although void ab initio, may still produce legal consequences. Among these legal
subsisting as the same had not yet been annulled or declared void by a competent consequences is incurring criminal liability for bigamy. To hold otherwise would
authority. Thus, all the elements of bigamy were alleged in the Information. In her render the State’s penal laws on bigamy completely nugatory, and allow
Motion to Quash the Information, she alleged, among others, that: individuals to deliberately ensure that each marital contract be flawed in some
manner, and to thus escape the consequences of contracting multiple marriages,
xxxx while beguiling throngs of hapless women with the promise of futurity and
2. The records of this case would bear out that accused's marriage with commitment.31
said Socrates Flores was declared void ab initio on 14 April 2003 by And in Jarillo v. People,32 applying the foregoing jurisprudence, we affirmed the
Branch 256 of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City. The said accused's conviction for bigamy, ruling that the moment the accused contracted a
decision was never appealed, and became final and executory shortly second marriage without the previous one having been judicially declared null and
thereafter. void, the crime of bigamy was already consummated because at the time of the
3. In other words, before the filing of the Information in this case, her celebration of the second marriage, the accused’s first marriage which had not yet
marriage with Mr. Flores had already been declared void from the been declared null and void by a court of competent jurisdiction was deemed valid
beginning. and subsisting.
4. There was therefore no marriage prior to 24 January 1983 to speak of. Here, at the time respondent contracted the second marriage, the first marriage
In other words, there was only one marriage. was still subsisting as it had not yet been legally dissolved. As ruled in the above-
mentioned jurisprudence, the subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the first
5. The basic element of the crime of bigamy, that is, two valid marriages, marriage would not change the fact that she contracted the second marriage during
is therefore wanting.25 the subsistence of the first marriage. Thus, respondent was properly charged of the
Clearly, the annulment of respondent's first marriage on the ground of crime of bigamy, since the essential elements of the offense charged were
psychological incapacity was declared only in 2003. The question now is whether sufficiently alleged.
the declaration of nullity of respondent's first marriage justifies the dismissal of Respondent claims that Tenebro v. CA33 is not applicable, since the declaration of
the Information for bigamy filed against her. nullity of the previous marriage came after the filing of the Information, unlike in
We rule in the negative. this case where the declaration was rendered before the information was filed. We
do not agree. What makes a person criminally liable for bigamy is when he
In Mercado v. Tan,26 we ruled that the subsequent judicial declaration of the contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid
nullity of the first marriage was immaterial, because prior to the declaration of marriage.
nullity, the crime of bigamy had already been consummated. And by contracting a
second marriage while the first was still subsisting, the accused committed the Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity,
acts punishable under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. for the same must be submitted to the judgment of competent courts and only
when the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and so long
In Abunado v. People,27 we held that what is required for the charge of bigamy to as there is no such declaration the presumption is that the marriage exists. 34
prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at the time the second marriage is Therefore, he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of
contracted.28 Even if the accused eventually obtained a declaration that his first nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy.35
marriage was void ab initio, the point is, both the first and the second marriage
were subsisting before the first marriage was annulled.29 Anent respondent's contention in her Comment that since her two marriages were
contracted prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, Article 40 of the Family
In Tenebro v. CA,30 we declared that although the judicial declaration of the Code cannot be given retroactive effect because this will impair her right to
nullity of a marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity retroacts to the remarry without need of securing a judicial declaration of nullity of a completely
date of the celebration of the marriage insofar as the vinculum between the void marriage.
spouses is concerned, it is significant to note that said marriage is not without
legal effects. Among these effects is that children conceived or born before the We are not persuaded.
judgment of absolute nullity of the marriage shall be considered legitimate. There
In Jarillo v. People,36 where the accused, in her motion for reconsideration, argued
that since her marriages were entered into before the effectivity of the Family
Code, then the applicable law is Section 29 of the Marriage Law (Act 3613),37
instead of Article 40 of the Family Code, which requires a final judgment
declaring the previous marriage void before a person may contract a subsequent
marriage. We did not find the argument meritorious and said:
As far back as 1995, in Atienza v. Brillantes, Jr., the Court already made the
declaration that Article 40, which is a rule of procedure, should be applied
retroactively because Article 256 of the Family Code itself provides that said
"Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair
vested or acquired rights." The Court went on to explain, thus:
The fact that procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants' rights may not
preclude their retroactive application to pending actions. The retroactive
application of procedural laws is not violative of any right of a person who may
feel that he is adversely affected. The reason is that as a general rule, no vested
right may attach to, nor arise from, procedural laws. 1âwphi1

In Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis, the Court pointed out the danger of not enforcing the
provisions of Article 40 of the Family Code, to wit:
In the case at bar, respondent’s clear intent is to obtain a judicial declaration
nullity of his first marriage and thereafter to invoke that very same judgment to
prevent his prosecution for bigamy. He cannot have his cake and eat it too.
Otherwise, all that an adventurous bigamist has to do is disregard Article 40 of the
Family Code, contract a subsequent marriage and escape a bigamy charge by
simply claiming that the first marriage is void and that the subsequent marriage is
equally void for lack of a prior judicial declaration of nullity of the first. A party
may even enter into a marriage license and thereafter contract a subsequent
marriage without obtaining a declaration of nullity of the first on the assumption
that the first marriage is void. Such scenario would render nugatory the provision
on bigamy.38
WHEREFORE, considering the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED. The Order
dated September 24, 2007 and the Resolution dated January 2, 2008 of the
Regional Trial Court of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 31, issued in Criminal Case
No. 4990-SPL, are hereby SET ASIDE. Criminal Case No. 4990-SPL is ordered
REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.