found herein petitioner Lucio Morigo y Cacho guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of bigamy and sen-

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.
1 Rollo, pp. 38-44. Penned by Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria
376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
and concurred in by Associate Justices Marina L. Buzon and Edgardo
Morigo vs. People P.Cruz.
2 Records, pp. 114-119.
*
G.R. No. 145226. February 6, 2004.
377

LUCIO MORIGO y CACHO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. VOL. 422, FEBRUARY 6, 2004 377
Morigo vs. People
Criminal Law; Bigamy; Elements; In Marbella-Bobis vs.
Bobis, the elements of bigamy were laid down.—In Marbella-Bobis tenced him to a prison term of seven (7) months of prision
v. Bobis we laid down the elements of bigamy thus: (1) the correccional as minimum to six (6) years and one (1) day of
offender has been legally married; (2) the first marriage has not prision mayor 3as maximum. Also assailed in this petition is
been legally dissolved, or in case his or her spouse is absent, the the resolution of the appellate court, dated September 25,
absent spouse has not been judicially declared presumptively 2000, denying Morigo’s motion for reconsideration.
dead; (3) he contracts a subsequent marriage; and (4) the The facts of this case, as found by the court a quo, are as
subsequent marriage would have been valid had it not been for follows:
the existence of the first.
Appellant Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates at
Same; Same; Same; Declaration of the first marriage as void the house of Catalina Tortor at Tagbilaran City, Province of
ab initio retroacts to the date of the celebration of the first Bohol, for a period of four (4) years (from 1974-1978).
marriage.—There was no marriage to begin with; and that such After school year 1977-78, Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete lost
declaration of nullity retroacts to the date of the first marriage. In contact with each other.
other words, for all intents and purposes, reckoned from the date In 1984, Lucio Morigo was surprised to receive a card from
of the declaration of the first marriage as void ab initio to the date Lucia Barrete from Singapore. The former replied and after an
of the celebration of the first marriage, the accused was, under exchange of letters, they became sweethearts.
the eyes of the law, never married. In 1986, Lucia returned to the Philippines but left again for
Canada to work there. While in Canada, they maintained
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and constant communication.
resolution of the Court of Appeals. In 1990, Lucia came back to the Philippines and proposed to
petition appellant to join her in Canada. Both agreed to get
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
married, thus they were married on August 30, 1990 at the Iglesia
          Jordan M. Pizarras and Joselito T. Lopez for
de Filipina Nacional at Catagdaan, Pilar, Bohol.
petitioner.
On September 8, 1990, Lucia reported back to her work in
     The Solicitor General for the People.
Canada leaving appellant Lucio behind.
QUISUMBING, J.: On August 19, 1991, Lucia filed with the Ontario Court
(General Division) a petition for divorce against appellant which
This petition
1
for review on certiorari seeks to reverse the was granted by the court on January 17, 1992 and to take effect
decision dated October 21, 1999 of the Court of Appeals in2 on February 17, 1992.
CA-G.R. CR No. 20700, which affirmed the judgment On October 4, 4 1992, appellant Lucio Morigo married Maria
dated August 5, 1996 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Jececha Lumbago at the Virgen sa Barangay Parish, Tagbilaran
Bohol, Branch 4, in Criminal Case No. 8688. The trial court City, Bohol.
 On September 21, 1993, accused filed a complaint for judicial parties to a marriage should not be allowed to assume that
declaration of nullity of marriage in the Regional Trial Court of their marriage is void even if such be the fact but must
Bohol, docketed as Civil Case No. 6020. The complaint seek (sic)
among others, the declaration of nullity of accused’s marriage _______________
with Lucia, on the ground that no marriage ceremony actually
took place. 5 The accusatory portion of the charge sheet found in Records, p. 1,
reads:
_______________
“That, on or about the 4th day of October, 1992, in the City of Tagbilaran,

3 Rollo, pp. 46-58. Per Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz, with Associate Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named

Justices Cancio C. Garcia and Marina L. Buzon, concurring and Eugenio S. accused being previously united in lawful marriage with Lucia Barrete on August

Labitoria and Bernardo P. Abesamis, dissenting. 23, 1990 and without the said marriage having been legally dissolved, did then

4 Her correct name is Maria Jececha Limbago (Italics for emphasis). See Exh. and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously contract a second marriage with

“B”, the copy of their marriage contract. Records, p. 10. Maria Jececha Limbago to the damage and prejudice of Lucia Barrete in the
amount to be proved during trial.
378 “Acts committed contrary to the provisions of Article 349 of the Revised Penal
Code.”

378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 6 Rollo, pp. 38-40.

Morigo vs. People 7 Records, p. 119.
8 G.R. No. 104818, 17 September 1993, 226 SCRA 572.
On October 19, 1993, appellant was charged with Bigamy in an
5
379
Information filed by the City Prosecutor
6
of Tagbilaran [City],
with the Regional Trial Court of Bohol.
VOL. 422, FEBRUARY 6, 2004 379
The petitioner moved for suspension of the arraignment on
the ground that the civil case for judicial nullification of his Morigo vs. People
marriage with Lucia posed a prejudicial question in the
bigamy case. His motion was granted, but subsequently first secure a judicial declaration of the nullity of their
denied upon motion for reconsideration by the prosecution. marriage before they can be allowed to marry again.
When arraigned in the bigamy case, which was docketed as Anent the Canadian divorce 9
obtained by Lucia, the trial
Criminal Case No. 8688, herein petitioner pleaded not court cited Ramirez v. Gmur, which held that the court of a
guilty to the charge. Trial thereafter ensued. country in which neither of the spouses is domiciled and in
On August 5, 1996, the RTC of Bohol handed down its which one or both spouses may resort merely for the
judgment in Criminal Case No. 8688, as follows: purpose of obtaining a divorce, has no jurisdiction to
determine the matrimonial status of the parties. As such, a
“WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Court finds divorce granted by said court is not entitled to recognition
accused Lucio Morigo y Cacho guilty beyond reasonable doubt of anywhere. Debunking Lucio’s defense of good faith in
the crime of Bigamy and sentences him to suffer the penalty of contracting the second marriage, the trial court stressed
10
imprisonment ranging from Seven (7) Months of Prision that following People v. Bitdu, everyone is presumed to
Correccional as minimum to Six (6) Years and One (1) Day of know the law, and the fact that one does not know that his
Prision Mayor as maximum.
7 act constitutes a violation of the law does not exempt him
“SO ORDERED.” from the consequences thereof.
Seasonably, petitioner filed an appeal with the Court of
In convicting herein petitioner, the trial court discounted
Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 20700.
petitioner’s claim that his first marriage to Lucia was null8
Meanwhile, on October 23, 1997, or while CA-G.R. CR
and void ab initio. Following Domingo v. Court of Appeals,
No. 20700 was pending before the appellate court, the trial
the trial court ruled that want of a valid marriage
court rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 6020 declaring
ceremony is not a defense in a charge of bigamy. The
the marriage between Lucio and Lucia void ab initio since
no marriage ceremony actually took place. No appeal was
taken from this decision, which then became final and (such as the effect of a foreign divorce decree) to be a basis
executory. for good faith.
On October 21, 1999, the appellate court decided CA- On September 25, 2000, 16
the appellate court denied the
G.R. CR No. 20700 as follows: motion for lack of merit. However, the denial was by a
split vote. The ponente of the appellate court’s original
“WHEREFORE, finding no error in the appealed decision, the decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 20700, Justice Eugenio S.
same is hereby AFFIRMED
11
in toto. Labitoria, joined in the opinion prepared by Justice
“SO ORDERED.” Bernardo P. Abesamis. The dissent observed that as the
first marriage was validly declared void ab initio, then
In affirming the assailed judgment of conviction, the
there was no first marriage to speak of. Since the date of
appellate court stressed that the subsequent declaration of
the nullity retroacts to the date of the first marriage and
nullity of Lucio’s marriage to Lucia in Civil Case No. 6020
since herein petitioner was, in the eyes of the law, never
could not acquit Lucio. The12 reason is that what is sought to
married, he cannot be convicted beyond reasonable doubt of
be punished by Article 349 of
bigamy.

_______________
_______________
9 42 Phil. 855, 863 (1918).
13 Art. 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status,
10 58 Phil. 817 (1933).
condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the
11 Rollo, p. 43.
Philippines, even though living abroad.
12 ART. 349. Bigamy.—The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed
14 Art. 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other
upon any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage
public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which
before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent
they are executed.
spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment
When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or
rendered in the proper proceedings.
consular officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country,
380 the solemnities established by Philippine laws shall be observed in their
execution.
Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those
380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs
Morigo vs. People shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by
determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.

the Revised Penal Code is the act of contracting a second 15 G.R. Nos. 89983-84, 6 March 1992, 207 SCRA 85.

marriage before the first marriage had been dissolved. 16 Rollo, p. 51.

Hence, the CA held, the fact that the first marriage was 381
void from the beginning is not a valid defense in a bigamy
case.
The Court of Appeals also pointed out that the divorce VOL. 422, FEBRUARY 6, 2004 381
decree obtained by Lucia from the Canadian court could Morigo vs. People
not be accorded
13
validity in the Philippines, pursuant to
Article 15 of the Civil Code and given the fact that it is
The present petition raises the following issues for our
contrary to public policy in this jurisdiction. Under Article
14 resolution:
17 of the Civil Code, a declaration of public policy cannot
be rendered ineffectual by a judgment promulgated in a A.
foreign jurisdiction.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the appellate WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
court’s decision, contending that the doctrine in Mendiola FAILING TO APPLY THE RULE THAT IN CRIMES
15
v. People, allows mistake upon a difficult question of law PENALIZED UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE,
CRIMINAL INTENT IS AN INDISPENSABLE REQUISITE.
 18
COROLLARILY, WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF upon our ruling in Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis, which held
APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE [THE] that bigamy can be successfully prosecuted provided 19
all the
PETITIONER’S LACK OF CRIMINAL INTENT WHEN HE elements concur, stressing that under Article 40 of the
CONTRACTED THE SECOND MARRIAGE. Family Code, a judicial declaration of nullity is a must
before a party may re-marry. Whether or not the petitioner
B. was aware of said Article 40 is of no account as everyone is
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
presumed to know the law. The OSG counters that
HOLDING THAT THE RULING IN PEOPLE VS. BITDU (58
petitioner’s contention that he was in good faith because he
PHIL. 817) IS APPLICABLE TO THE CASE AT BAR.
relied on the divorce decree of the Ontario court is negated
by his act of filing Civil Case No. 6020, seeking a judicial
C. declaration of nullity of his marriage to Lucia.
Before we delve into petitioner’s defense of good faith
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN and lack of criminal intent, we must first determine
FAILING TO APPLY THE RULE THAT EACH AND EVERY whether all the elements of 20bigamy are present in this case.
CIRCUMSTANCE FAVORING THE INNOCENCE17
OF THE In Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis we laid down the elements of
ACCUSED MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. bigamy thus:
To our mind, the primordial issue should be whether or not (1) the offender has been legally married;
petitioner committed bigamy and if so, whether his defense
(2) the first marriage has not been legally dissolved, or
of good faith is valid.
in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent
The petitioner submits that he should not be faulted for
spouse has not been judicially declared
relying in good faith upon the divorce decree of the Ontario
presumptively dead;
court. He highlights the fact that he contracted the second
marriage openly and publicly, which a person intent upon (3) he contracts a subsequent marriage; and
committing bigamy would not be doing. The petitioner (4) the subsequent marriage would have been valid
further argues that his lack of criminal intent is material had it not been for the existence of the first.
to a conviction or acquittal in the instant case. The crime of
bigamy, just like other felonies punished under the Revised Applying the foregoing test to the instant case, we note
Penal Code, is mala in se, and hence, good faith and lack of that during the pendency of CA-G.R. CR No. 20700, the
criminal intent are allowed as a complete defense. He RTC of Bohol Branch 1, handed down the following
stresses that there is a difference between the intent to decision in Civil Case No. 6020, to wit:
commit the crime and the intent to perpetrate the act.
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
Hence, it does not necessarily follow that his intention to
rendered decreeing the annulment of the marriage entered into by
contract a second marriage is tantamount to an intent to
petitioner Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete on August 23, 1990 in
commit bigamy.
Pilar, Bohol and further directing the Local Civil Registrar of
Pilar, Bohol to effect the cancellation of the marriage contract.
_______________

_______________
17 Id., at pp. 20-21.
18 G.R. No. 138509, 31 July 2000, 336 SCRA 747, 752-753.
382
19 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
382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED previous marriage void.
Supra.
Morigo vs. People 20

383
For the respondent, the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) submits that good faith in the instant case is a
convenient but flimsy excuse. The Solicitor General relies VOL. 422, FEBRUARY 6, 2004 383
18
 Morigo vs. People An irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the
marriage but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly,
21
“SO ORDERED.” criminally and administratively liable.

The trial court found that there was no actual marriage 24 Rollo, p. 54.
ceremony performed between Lucio and Lucia by a
384
solemnizing officer. Instead, what transpired was a mere
signing of the marriage contract by the two, without the
presence of a solemnizing officer. The trial court thus held 384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
that the 22marriage23
is void ab initio, in accordance with Morigo vs. People
Articles 3 and 4 of the Family Code. As the dissenting
opinion in CA-G.R. CR No. 20700, correctly puts it, “This
simply means that there was no marriage to begin with; legal purposes, petitioner was not married to Lucia at the
and that such declaration of nullity retroacts to the date of time he contracted the marriage with Maria Jececha. The
the first marriage. In other words, for all intents and existence and the validity of the first marriage being an
purposes, reckoned from the date of the declaration of the essential element of the crime of bigamy, it is but logical
first marriage as void ab initio to the date of the that a conviction for said offense cannot be sustained where
celebration of the first marriage, the accused was, under there is no first marriage to speak of. The petitioner, must,
24
the eyes of the law, never married.” The records show that perforce be acquitted of the instant charge.
no appeal was taken from the decision of the trial court in The present case is analogous 25
to, but must be
Civil Case No. 6020, hence, the decision had long become distinguished from Mercado v. Tan. In the latter case, the
final and executory. judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage was
The first element of bigamy as a crime requires that the likewise obtained after the second marriage was already
accused must have been legally married. But in this case, celebrated. We held therein that:
legally speaking, the petitioner was never married to Lucia A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is
Barrete. Thus, there is no first marriage to speak of. Under necessary before a subsequent one can be legally contracted. One
the principle of retroactivity of a marriage being declared who enters into a subsequent marriage without first obtaining
void ab initio, the two were never married “from the such judicial declaration is guilty of bigamy. This principle applies
beginning.” The contract of marriage is null; it bears no even if the earlier union is characterized by statutes as “void.”
26

legal effect. Taking this argument to its logical conclusion,

for It bears stressing though that in Mercado, the first
marriage was actually solemnized not just once, but twice:
_______________ first before a judge where a marriage certificate was duly
issued and then again six months later before a priest in
21 CA Rollo, p. 38. religious rites. Ostensibly, at least, the first marriage
22 Art. 3. The formal requisites of marriage are: appeared to have transpired, although later declared void
ab initio.
(1) Authority of the solemnizing officer;
In the instant case, however, no marriage ceremony at
(2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in
all was performed by a duly authorized solemnizing officer.
Chapter 2 of this Title; and
Petitioner and Lucia Barrete merely signed a marriage
(3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of contract on their own. The mere private act of signing a
the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their marriage contract bears no semblance to a valid marriage
personal declaration that they take each other as husband and and thus, needs no judicial declaration of nullity. Such act
wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age. alone, without more, cannot be deemed to constitute an
ostensibly valid marriage for which petitioner might be
23 Art. 4. The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall
held liable for bigamy unless he first secures a judicial
render the marriage void ab initio except as stated in Article 35 (2).
declaration of nullity before he contracts a subsequent
A defect in any of the essential requisites shall render the marriage voidable as marriage.
provided in Article 45.
 The law abhors an injustice and 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 to ensure that justice is done. Under the
circumstances of the present case, we held that petitioner
has not committed bigamy. Further, we also find that we
need not tarry on the issue of the validity of

_______________

25 G.R. No. 137110, 1 August 2000, 337 SCRA 122.

26 Id., at p. 124.

385

VOL. 422, FEBRUARY 6, 2004 385

People vs. Santiago

his defense of good faith or lack of criminal intent, which is

now moot and academic.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The
assailed decision, dated October 21, 1999 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 20700, as well as the resolution
of the appellate court dated September 25, 2000, denying
herein petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petitioner Lucio Morigo
y Cacho is ACQUITTED from the charge of BIGAMY on
the ground that his guilt has not been proven with moral
certainty.
SO ORDERED.

          Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr.

and Tinga, JJ., concur.

Petition granted, judgment and resolution set aside.

Note.—A judge ought to know that a subsisting

previous marriage is a diriment impediment, which would
make the subsequent marriage null and void. (Borja-
Manzano vs. Sanchez, 354 SCRA 1 [2001])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.