Santiago V People

9/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 763
G.R. No. 200233. July 15, 2015.*
LEONILA G. SANTIAGO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Criminal Law; Bigamy; The crime of bigamy does not necessarily

entail the joint liability of two (2) persons who marry each other while the
previous marriage of one (1) of them is valid and subsisting.—The crime of
bigamy does not necessary entail the joint liability of two persons who
marry each other while the previous marriage of one of them is valid and
subsisting. As explained in People v. Nepomuceno, Jr., 64 SCRA 518
(1975): In the crime of bigamy, both the first and second spouses may be the
offended parties depending on the circumstances, as when the second
spouse married the accused without being aware of his previous marriage.
Only if the second spouse had knowledge of the previous undissolved
marriage of the accused could she be included in the information as a
co-accused.
Same; Same; Accomplices; The second spouse, if indicted in the crime
of bigamy, is liable only as an accomplice.—People v. Archilla, 1 SCRA
698 (1961), holds that the second spouse, if indicted in the crime of bigamy,
is liable only as an accomplice. In referring to Viada, Justice Luis B. Reyes,
an eminent authority in criminal law, writes that “a person, whether man or
woman, who knowingly consents or agrees to be married to another already
bound in lawful wedlock is guilty as an accomplice in the crime of bigamy.”
There-
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
55
VOL. 763, JULY 15, 2015 55

Santiago vs. People
fore, her conviction should only be that for an accomplice to the crime.
Same; Same; Penalties; Under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), as amended, the penalty for a principal in the crime of bigamy is
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017482533759961b2193003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15
prisión mayor, which has a duration of six (6) years and one (1) day to
twelve (12) years. Since the criminal participation of petitioner is that of an
accomplice, the sentence imposable on her is the penalty next lower in
degree, prisión correccional, which has a duration of 6 months and 1 day to
6 years.—Under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the
penalty for a principal in the crime of bigamy is prisión mayor, which has a
duration of six years and one day to twelve years. Since the criminal
participation of petitioner is that of an accomplice, the sentence imposable
on her is the penalty next lower in degree, prisión correccional, which has a
duration of six months and one day to six years. There being neither
aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, this penalty shall be imposed in its
medium period consisting of two years, four months and one day to four
years and two months of imprisonment. Applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, petitioner shall be entitled to a minimum term, to be taken
from the penalty next lower in degree, arresto mayor, which has a duration
of one month and one day to six months imprisonment.
Same; Same; 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.—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. If the accused wants to raise the
nullity of the marriage, he or she can do it as a matter of defense during the
presentation of evidence in the trial proper of the criminal case. In this case,
petitioner has consistently questioned below the validity of her marriage to
Santos on the ground that marriages celebrated without the essential
requisite of a marriage license are void ab initio.
Same; Same; It is a basic concept of justice that no court will “lend its
aid to x x x one who has consciously and voluntarily become a party to an
illegal act upon which the cause of action is founded.”—It is a basic
concept of justice that no court will “lend its aid to x x x one who has
consciously and voluntarily become a party to an illegal
56
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Santiago vs. People
act upon which the cause of action is founded.” If the cause of action
appears to arise ex turpi causa or that which involves a transgression of
positive law, parties shall be left unassisted by the courts. As a result,
litigants shall be denied relief on the ground that their conduct has been
inequitable, unfair and dishonest or fraudulent, or deceitful as to the
controversy in issue.
Same; Same; No less than the present Constitution provides that
“marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family
and shall be protected by the State.”—No less than the present Constitution
provides that “marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation
of the family and shall be protected by the State.” It must be safeguarded
from the whims and caprices of the contracting parties. In keeping therefore
with this fundamental policy, this Court affirms the conviction of petitioner
for bigamy.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Aguila, Aguila & Aguila Law Office for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondent.
SERENO, CJ.:
We resolve the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by

petitioner Leonila G. Santiago from the Decision and Resolution of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CR No. 33566.1 The CA
affirmed the Decision and Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
in Criminal Case No. 72322 convicting her of bigamy.
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 56-70, 72-73; the CA Decision dated 21 September 2011 and
Resolution dated 5 January 2012 were penned by Associate Justice Remedios A.
Salazar-Fernando, with Associate Justices Michael P. Elbinias and Elihu A. Ybañez,
concurring.
2 Id., at pp. 75-83, 85-86; the RTC Decision dated 21 May 2010 and Order dated
24 June 2010 were penned by Judge Celso O. Baguio of RTC Branch 34, Gapan City,
Nueva Ecija.
57
VOL. 763, JULY 15, 2015 57

Santiago vs. People
The Facts
Four months after the solemnization of their marriage on 29 July

1997,3 Leonila G. Santiago and Nicanor F. Santos faced an
Information4 for bigamy. Petitioner pleaded “not guilty,” while her
putative husband escaped the criminal suit.5
The prosecution adduced evidence that Santos, who had been
married to Estela Galang since 2 June 1974,6 asked petitioner to
marry him. Petitioner, who was a 43-year-old widow then, married
Santos on 29 July 1997 despite the advice of her brother-in-law and
parents-in-law that if she wanted to remarry, she should choose

someone who was “without responsibility.”7
Petitioner asserted her affirmative defense that she could not be
included as an accused in the crime of bigamy, because she had been
under the belief that Santos was still single when they got married.
She also averred that for there to be a conviction for bigamy, his
second marriage to her should be proven valid by the prosecution;
but in this case, she argued that their marriage was void due to the
lack of a marriage license.
Eleven years after the inception of this criminal case, the first
wife, Estela Galang, testified for the prosecution. She alleged that
she had met petitioner as early as March and April 1997, on which
occasions the former introduced herself as the legal wife of Santos.
Petitioner denied this
58

Santiago vs. People
allegation and averred that she met Galang only in August and
September 1997, or after she had already married Santos.
The RTC’s Ruling
The RTC appreciated the undisputed fact that petitioner married

Santos during the subsistence of his marriage to Galang. Based on
the more credible account of Galang that she had already introduced
herself as the legal wife of Santos in March and April 1997, the trial
court rejected the affirmative defense of petitioner that she had not
known of the first marriage. It also held that it was incredible for a
learned person like petitioner to be easily duped by a person like
Santos.8
The RTC declared that as indicated in the Certificate of Marriage,
“her marriage was celebrated without a need for a marriage license
in accordance with Article 34 of the Family Code, which is an
admission that she cohabited with Santos long before the celebration
of their marriage.”9 Thus, the trial court convicted petitioner as
follows:10
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court finds the accused

Leonila G. Santiago GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Bigamy, defined and penalized under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code
and imposes against her the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one
(1) day of Prisión Correccional as minimum to six (6) years and one (1) day
of Prisión Mayor as maximum.
No pronouncement as to costs.
_______________
8 Id., at p. 80; RTC Decision, p. 6. See also Records, pp. 269-270, 117; the
appointment papers of petitioner showed that she worked as a faculty member of
Divina Pastora College, and the Death Certificate of Nicanor Santos indicated that he
was a laborer.
9 Id., at p. 83; RTC Decision, p. 9.
10 Id.
59
VOL. 763, JULY 15, 2015 59

Santiago vs. People
SO ORDERED.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration. She contended that her

marriage to Santos was void ab initio for having been celebrated
without complying with Article 34 of the Family Code, which
provides an exemption from the requirement of a marriage license if
the parties have actually lived together as husband and wife for at
least five years prior to the celebration of their marriage. In her case,
petitioner asserted that she and Santos had not lived together as
husband and wife for five years prior to their marriage. Hence, she
argued that the absence of a marriage license effectively rendered
their marriage null and void, justifying her acquittal from bigamy.
The RTC refused to reverse her conviction and held thus:11
Accused Santiago submits that it is her marriage to her co-
accused that is null and void as it was celebrated without a valid
marriage license x x x. In advancing that theory, accused wants this
court to pass judgment on the validity of her marriage to accused
Santos, something this court can not do. The best support to her
argument would have been the submission of a judicial decree of
annulment of their marriage. Absent such proof, this court cannot
declare their marriage null and void in these proceedings.
The CA’s Ruling
On appeal before the CA, petitioner claimed that her conviction

was not based on proof beyond reasonable doubt. She attacked the
credibility of Galang and insisted that the former had not known of
the previous marriage of Santos.
Similar to the RTC, the CA gave more weight to the prosecution
witnesses’ narration. It likewise disbelieved the testimony of Santos.
Anent the lack of a marriage license, the
_______________
11 Id., at p. 86; RTC Order, p. 2.
60

Santiago vs. People
appellate court simply stated that the claim was a vain attempt to put
the validity of her marriage to Santos in question. Consequently, the
CA affirmed her conviction for bigamy.12
The Issues
Before this Court, petitioner reiterates that she cannot be a co-

accused in the instant case, because she was not aware of Santos’s
previous marriage. But in the main, she argues that for there to be a
conviction for bigamy, a valid second marriage must be proven by
the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
Citing People v. De Lara,13 she contends that her marriage to
Santos is void because of the absence of a marriage license. She
elaborates that their marriage does not fall under any of those
marriages exempt from a marriage license, because they have not
previously lived together exclusively as husband and wife for at
least five years. She alleges that it is extant in the records that she
married Santos in 1997, or only four years since she met him in
1993. Without completing the five-year requirement, she posits that
their marriage without a license is void.
In the Comment14 filed by the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG), respondent advances the argument that the instant Rule 45
petition should be denied for raising factual issues as regards her
husband’s subsequent marriage. As regards petitioner’s denial of any
knowledge of Santos’s first marriage, respondent reiterates that
credible testimonial evidence supports the conclusion of the courts a
quo that petitioner knew about the subsisting marriage.
_______________
12 Id., at pp. 70, 73; CA Decision, p. 15, CA Resolution, p. 2.

13 No. 12583-R, 14 February 1955, 51 O.G. 4079.
14 Id., at pp. 152-169; Comment filed on 23 August 2012 by the Office of the
Solicitor General.
61
VOL. 763, JULY 15, 2015 61

Santiago vs. People
The crime of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal

Code provides:
The penalty of prisión 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 Montañez v. Cipriano,15 this Court enumerated the elements of

bigamy as follows:
The elements of the crime of bigamy are: (a) the offender has been
legally married; (b) the marriage has not been legally dissolved x x x; (c)
that he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and (d) the second or
subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. The
felony is consummated on the celebration of the second marriage or
subsequent marriage. It is essential in the prosecution for bigamy that the
alleged second marriage, having all the essential requirements, would be
valid were it not for the subsistence of the first marriage. (Emphasis
supplied)
For the second spouse to be indicted as a co-accused in the crime,

People v. Nepomuceno, Jr.16 instructs that she should have had
knowledge of the previous subsisting marriage. People v. Archilla17
likewise states that the knowledge of the second wife of the fact of
her spouse’s existing prior marriage constitutes an indispensable
cooperation in the commission of bigamy, which makes her
responsible as an accomplice.
_______________
15 G.R. No. 181089, 22 October 2012, 684 SCRA 315.

16 159-A Phil. 771; 64 SCRA 518 (1975).
17 111 Phil. 291; 1 SCRA 698 (1961).
62

Santiago vs. People
The Ruling of the Court

The penalty for bigamy and

petitioner’s knowledge of
Santos’s first marriage
The crime of bigamy does not necessary entail the joint liability
of two persons who marry each other while the previous marriage of
one of them is valid and subsisting. As explained in Nepomuceno:18
In the crime of bigamy, both the first and second spouses may be
the offended parties depending on the circumstances, as when the
second spouse married the accused without being aware of his
previous marriage. Only if the second spouse had knowledge of
the previous undissolved marriage of the accused could she be
included in the information as a co-accused. (Emphasis supplied)
Therefore, the lower courts correctly ascertained petitioner’s
knowledge of Santos’s marriage to Galang. Both courts consistently
found that she knew of the first marriage as shown by the totality of
the following circumstances:19 (1) when Santos was courting and
visiting petitioner in the house of her in-laws, they openly showed
their disapproval of him; (2) it was incredible for a learned person
like petitioner to not know of his true civil status; and (3) Galang,
who was the more credible witness compared with petitioner who
had various inconsistent testimonies, straightforwardly testified that
she had already told petitioner on two occasions that the former was
the legal wife of Santos.
_______________
18 People v. Nepomuceno, Jr., supra note 16 at p. 775; pp. 522-523.

19 Rollo, pp. 64-68, CA Decision dated 21 September 2011,
pp. 9-13; Rollo, pp. 80-81; RTC Decision dated 21 May 2010, pp. 6-7.
63
VOL. 763, JULY 15, 2015 63

Santiago vs. People
After a careful review of the records, we see no reason to reverse

or modify the factual findings of the RTC, less so in the present case
in which its findings were affirmed by the CA. Indeed, the trial
court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses deserves great
respect, since it had the important opportunity to observe firsthand
the expression and demeanor of the witnesses during the trial.20
Given that petitioner knew of the first marriage, this Court
concurs with the ruling that she was validly charged with bigamy.
However, we disagree with the lower courts’ imposition of the
principal penalty on her. To recall, the RTC, which the CA

affirmed, meted out to her the penalty within the range of prisión
correccional as minimum to prisión mayor as maximum.
Her punishment as a principal to the crime is wrong.
Archilla21 holds that the second spouse, if indicted in the crime of
bigamy, is liable only as an accomplice. In referring to Viada, Justice
Luis B. Reyes, an eminent authority in criminal law, writes that “a
person, whether man or woman, who knowingly consents or agrees
to be married to another already bound in lawful wedlock is guilty as
an accomplice in the crime of bigamy.”22 Therefore, her conviction
should only be that for an accomplice to the crime.
Under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the
penalty for a principal in the crime of bigamy is prisión mayor,
which has a duration of six years and one day to twelve years. Since
the criminal participation of petitioner is that of an accomplice, the
sentence imposable on her is the penalty next lower in degree,23
prisión correccional, which has a duration of six months and one
day to six years. There being
_______________
20 People v. Arcilla, 326 Phil. 774; 256 SCRA 757 (1996).

21 People v. Archilla, supra note 17 at p. 293; p. 700.
22 Reyes, Luis B., The Revised Penal Code, Criminal Law, Book Two, p. 979
(2012), citing Viada, 3 Cod. Pen. 274.
23 Revised Penal Code, Art. 52.
64

Santiago vs. People
neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, this penalty shall

be imposed in its medium period consisting of two years, four
months and one day to four years and two months of imprisonment.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,24 petitioner shall be
entitled to a minimum term, to be taken from the penalty next lower
in degree, arresto mayor, which has a duration of one month and one
day to six months imprisonment.
The criminal liability of petitioner

resulting from her marriage to Santos
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.25 If the accused wants to raise
the nullity of the marriage, he or she can do it as a matter of defense

during the presentation of evidence in the trial proper of the criminal
case.26 In this case, petitioner has consistently27 questioned below
the validity of her marriage to Santos on the ground that marriages
celebrated without the essential requisite of a marriage license are
void ab initio.28
Unfortunately, the lower courts merely brushed aside the issue.
The RTC stated that it could not pass judgment on the validity of the
marriage. The CA held that the attempt of petitioner to attack her
union with Santos was in vain.
_______________
24 Act No. 4103 (1965).

25 De la Cruz v. Ejercito, 160-A Phil. 669; 68 SCRA 1 (1975); Zapanta v.
Montesa, 114 Phil. 1227; 4 SCRA 510 (1962); Merced v. Diez, 109 Phil. 155 (1960);
and People v. Dumpo, 62 Phil. 246 (1935).
26 Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis, 391 Phil. 648; 336 SCRA 747 (2000).
27 Rollo, p. 77, RTC Decision, p. 3; Records, pp. 311-312, Motion for
Reconsideration filed by Santiago before the RTC, pp. 2-3.
28 Family Code, Art. 3.
65
VOL. 763, JULY 15, 2015 65

Santiago vs. People
On the basis that the lower courts have manifestly overlooked

certain issues and facts,29 and given that an appeal in a criminal case
throws the whole case open for review,30 this Court now resolves to
correct the error of the courts a quo.
After a perusal of the records, it is clear that the marriage
between petitioner and Santos took place without a marriage license.
The absence of this requirement is purportedly explained in their
Certificate of Marriage, which reveals that their union was
celebrated under Article 34 of the Family Code. The provision reads
as follows:
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.
Therefore, the marriage of petitioner and Santos would have been

exempted from a marriage license had they cohabited exclusively as
husband and wife for at least five years before their marriage.31
Here, respondent did not dispute that petitioner knew Santos in
more or less in February 199632 and that after six
_______________
29 Formilleza v. Sandiganbayan, 242 Phil. 519; 159 SCRA 1 (1988).

30 People v. Flores, Jr., 442 Phil. 561; 394 SCRA 325 (2002).
31 Republic v. Dayot, 573 Phil. 553; 550 SCRA 435 (2008).
32 The TSN dated 13 June 2002, p. 3 reflected that petitioner met Santos in 1996;
but according to the TSN dated 10 August 2004, she clarified in her additional direct
testimony that she met Santos in 1993. In both cases, she only knew Santos for less
than five years prior their marriage on 29 July 1997.
66

Santiago vs. People
months of courtship,33 she married him on 29 July 1997. Without

any objection from the prosecution, petitioner testified that Santos
had frequently visited her in Castellano, Nueva Ecija, prior to their
marriage. However, he never cohabited with her, as she was residing
in the house of her in-laws,34 and her children from her previous
marriage disliked him.35 On cross-examination, respondent did not
question the claim of petitioner that sometime in 1993, she first met
Santos as an agent who sold her piglets.36
All told, the evidence on record shows that petitioner and Santos
had only known each other for only less than four years. Thus, it
follows that the two of them could not have cohabited for at least
five years prior to their marriage.
Santiago and Santos, however, reflected the exact opposite of this
demonstrable fact. Although the records do not show that they
submitted an affidavit of cohabitation as required by Article 34 of
the Family Code, it appears that the two of them lied before the
solemnizing officer and misrepresented that they had actually
cohabited for at least five years before they married each other.
Unfortunately, subsequent to this lie was the issuance of the
Certificate of Marriage,37 in which the solemnizing officer stated
under oath that no marriage license was necessary, because the
marriage was solemnized under Article 34 of the Family Code.
The legal effects in a criminal

case of a deliberate act to put a
flaw in the marriage
_______________
33 Id., at p. 4.
34 Id., at pp. 7-8.
35 TSN, 24 October 2002, p. 14.
36 Id., at p. 2.
37 Records, p. 88. Certified True Copy of the Certificate of Marriage between
Nicanor F. Santos and Leonila G. Santiago.
67
VOL. 763, JULY 15, 2015 67

Santiago vs. People
The Certificate of Marriage, signed by Santos and Santiago,

contained the misrepresentation perpetrated by them that they were
eligible to contract marriage without a license. We thus face an
anomalous situation wherein petitioner seeks to be acquitted of
bigamy based on her illegal actions of (1) marrying Santos without a
marriage license despite knowing that they had not satisfied the
cohabitation requirement under the law; and (2) falsely making
claims in no less than her marriage contract.
We chastise this deceptive scheme that hides what is basically a
bigamous and illicit marriage in an effort to escape criminal
prosecution. Our penal laws on marriage, such as bigamy, punish an
individual’s deliberate disregard of the permanent and sacrosanct
character of this special bond between spouses.38 In Tenebro v. Court
of Appeals,39 we had the occasion to emphasize that the State’s penal
laws on bigamy should not be rendered nugatory by allowing
individuals “to deliberately ensure that each marital contract be
flawed in some manner, and to thus escape the consequences of
contracting multiple marriages, while beguiling throngs of hapless
women with the promise of futurity and commitment.”
Thus, in the case at bar, we cannot countenance petitioner’s
illegal acts of feigning a marriage and, in the same breath, adjudge
her innocent of the crime. For us, to do so would only make a
mockery of the sanctity of marriage.40
Furthermore, it is a basic concept of justice that no court will
“lend its aid to x x x one who has consciously and voluntarily
become a party to an illegal act upon which the cause of
_______________
38 Tenebro v. Court of Appeals, 467 Phil. 723; 423 SCRA 272 (2004).
39 Id., at p. 744; p. 284.
40 Republic v. Albios, G.R. No. 198780, 16 October 2013, 707 SCRA 584.
68

Santiago vs. People
action is founded.”41 If the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi

causa or that which involves a transgression of positive law, parties
shall be left unassisted by the courts.42 As a result, litigants shall be
denied relief on the ground that their conduct has been inequitable,
unfair and dishonest or fraudulent, or deceitful as to the controversy
in issue.43
Here, the cause of action of petitioner, meaning her affirmative
defense in this criminal case of bigamy, is that her marriage with
Santos was void for having been secured without a marriage license.
But as elucidated earlier, they themselves perpetrated a false
Certificate of Marriage by misrepresenting that they were exempted
from the license requirement based on their fabricated claim that
they had already cohabited as husband and wife for at least five
years prior their marriage. In violation of our law against illegal
marriages,44 petitioner married Santos while knowing fully well that
they had not yet complied with the five-year cohabitation
requirement under Article 34 of the Family Code. Consequently, it
will be the height of absurdity for this Court to allow petitioner to
use her illegal act to escape criminal conviction.
_______________
41 Manuel v. People, 512 Phil. 818, 851; 476 SCRA 461, 495 (2005).
42 Acabal v. Acabal, 494 Phil. 528; 454 SCRA 555 (2005).
43 Muller v. Muller, 531 Phil. 460; 500 SCRA 65 (2006).
44 Revised Penal Code, Arts. 349-352. Art. 350 punishes the crime of illegal
marriages as follows:
Art. 350. Marriage contracted against provisions of laws.— The penalty of
prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any
person who, without being included in the provisions of the next proceeding article,
shall have not been complied with or that the marriage is in disregard of a legal
impediment.
If either of the contracting parties shall obtain the consent of the other by means of
violence, intimidation or fraud, he shall be punished by the maximum period of the
penalty provided in the next preceding paragraph.
69
VOL. 763, JULY 15, 2015 69

Santiago vs. People
The applicability of People v. De Lara
Petitioner cites De Lara as the relevant jurisprudence involving

an acquittal for bigamy on the ground that the second marriage
lacked the requisite marriage license. In that case, the Court found
that when Domingo de Lara married his second wife, Josefa
Rosales, on 18 August 1951, the local Civil Registrar had yet to
issue their marriage license on 19 August 1951. Thus, since the
marriage was celebrated one day before the issuance of the marriage
license, the Court acquitted him of bigamy.
Noticeably, Domingo de Lara did not cause the falsification of
public documents in order to contract a second marriage. In contrast,
petitioner and Santos fraudulently secured a Certificate of Marriage,
and petitioner later used this blatantly illicit act as basis for seeking
her exculpation. Therefore, unlike our treatment of the accused in
De Lara, this Court cannot regard petitioner herein as innocent of
the crime.
No less than the present Constitution provides that “marriage, as
an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and
shall be protected by the State.”45 It must be safeguarded from the
whims and caprices of the contracting parties.46 In keeping therefore
with this fundamental policy, this Court affirms the conviction of
petitioner for bigamy.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by
petitioner Leonila G. Santiago is DENIED. The Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR No. 33566 is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. As modified, petitioner
Leonila G. Santiago is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of bigamy as an accomplice. She is sentenced to suffer
the indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor as
minimum to four years of prisión correccional as maximum plus
accessory penalties provided by law.
_______________
45 Constitution, Article XV, Sec. 2.

46 Supra note 40.
70

Santiago vs. People
SO ORDERED.
Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, Perez and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ.,

concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed with

modification.
Notes.—Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge

for themselves its nullity, 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 as there is
no such declaration, the presumption is that the marriage exists.
(Lasanas vs. People, 727 SCRA 98 [2014])
Under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the penalty
for bigamy is prisión mayor. (Id.)
——o0o——
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Santiago V People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santiago V People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santiago V People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 763

G.R. No. 200233. July 15, 2015.*

LEONILA G. SANTIAGO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

Criminal Law; Bigamy; The crime of bigamy does not necessarily

VOL. 763, JULY 15, 2015 55

56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

We resolve the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by

VOL. 763, JULY 15, 2015 57

Four months after the solemnization of their marriage on 29 July

parents-in-law that if she wanted to remarry, she should choose

58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The RTC’s Ruling

The RTC appreciated the undisputed fact that petitioner married

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court finds the accused

VOL. 763, JULY 15, 2015 59

Petitioner moved for reconsideration. She contended that her

The CA’s Ruling

On appeal before the CA, petitioner claimed that her conviction

11 Id., at p. 86; RTC Order, p. 2.

60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Before this Court, petitioner reiterates that she cannot be a co-

12 Id., at pp. 70, 73; CA Decision, p. 15, CA Resolution, p. 2.

VOL. 763, JULY 15, 2015 61

The crime of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal

In Montañez v. Cipriano,15 this Court enumerated the elements of

For the second spouse to be indicted as a co-accused in the crime,

15 G.R. No. 181089, 22 October 2012, 684 SCRA 315.

62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Ruling of the Court

The penalty for bigamy and

18 People v. Nepomuceno, Jr., supra note 16 at p. 775; pp. 522-523.

VOL. 763, JULY 15, 2015 63

After a careful review of the records, we see no reason to reverse

principal penalty on her. To recall, the RTC, which the CA

20 People v. Arcilla, 326 Phil. 774; 256 SCRA 757 (1996).

64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, this penalty shall

The criminal liability of petitioner

Jurisprudence clearly requires that for the accused to be

the nullity of the marriage, he or she can do it as a matter of defense

24 Act No. 4103 (1965).

VOL. 763, JULY 15, 2015 65

On the basis that the lower courts have manifestly overlooked

No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman

Therefore, the marriage of petitioner and Santos would have been

29 Formilleza v. Sandiganbayan, 242 Phil. 519; 159 SCRA 1 (1988).

66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

months of courtship,33 she married him on 29 July 1997. Without

The legal effects in a criminal

flaw in the marriage

VOL. 763, JULY 15, 2015 67

The Certificate of Marriage, signed by Santos and Santiago,

68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

action is founded.”41 If the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi

VOL. 763, JULY 15, 2015 69

The applicability of People v. De Lara

Petitioner cites De Lara as the relevant jurisprudence involving

45 Constitution, Article XV, Sec. 2.