G.R. No. 182438. July 2, 2014.*

RENE RONULO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Criminal Law; Performing Illegal Marriage Ceremony; Article

352 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, penalizes an
authorized solemnizing officer who shall perform or authorize any
illegal marriage ceremony.—Article 352 of the RPC, as amended,
penalizes an authorized solemnizing officer who shall perform or
authorize any illegal marriage ceremony. The elements of this
crime are as follows: (1) authority of the solemnizing officer; and
(2) his performance of an illegal marriage ceremony. In the
present case,

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

676

676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ronulo vs. People

the petitioner admitted that he has authority to solemnize

a marriage. Hence, the only issue to be resolved is whether the
alleged “blessing” by the petitioner is tantamount to the
performance of an “illegal marriage ceremony” which is
punishable under Article 352 of the RPC, as amended.
Same; Same; While Article 352 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), as amended, does not specifically define a “marriage
ceremony” and what constitutes its “illegal” performance, Articles
3(3) and 6 of the Family Code are clear on these matters.—While
Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, does not specifically define a
“marriage ceremony” and what constitutes its “illegal”
performance, Articles 3(3) and 6 of the Family Code are clear on
these matters. These provisions were taken from Article 55 of the
New Civil Code which, in turn, was copied from Section 3 of the
Marriage Law with no substantial amendments. Article 6 of the
Family Code provides that “[n]o prescribed form or religious rite
for the solemnization of the marriage is required. It shall be
necessary, however, for the contracting parties to appear
personally before the solemnizing officer and declare in the
presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age that
they take each other as husband and wife.”
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Prosecution of Offenses;
A judge may examine or cross-examine a witness. He may
propound clarificatory questions to test the credibility of the
witness and to extract the truth.—The petitioner’s allegation that
the court asked insinuating and leading questions to Florida fails
to persuade us. A judge may examine or cross-examine a witness.
He may propound clarificatory questions to test the credibility of
the witness and to extract the truth. He may seek to draw out
relevant and material testimony though that testimony may tend
to support or rebut the position taken by one or the other party. It
cannot be taken against him if the clarificatory questions he
propounds happen to reveal certain truths that tend to destroy
the theory of one party.
Civil Law; Family Code; Marriages; No prescribed form or
religious rite for the solemnization of marriage is required.—We
also do not agree with the petitioner that the principle of
separation of church and State precludes the State from
qualifying the church “blessing” into a marriage ceremony.
Contrary to the petitioner’s allegation, this principle has been
duly preserved by Article 6 of the

677

VOL. 728, JULY 2, 2014 677

Ronulo vs. People

Family Code when it provides that no prescribed form or religious

rite for the solemnization of marriage is required. This
pronouncement gives any religion or sect the freedom or latitude
in conducting its respective marital rites, subject only to the
requirement that the core requirements of law be observed.
Constitutional Law; Marriages; Article 15 of the Constitution
recognizes marriage as an inviolable social institution and that
our family law is based on the policy that marriage is not a mere
contract, but a social institution in which the State is vitally
interested.—We emphasize at this point that Article 15 of the
Constitution recognizes marriage as an inviolable social
institution and that our family law is based on the policy that
marriage is not a mere contract, but a social institution in which
the State is vitally interested. The State has paramount interest
in the enforcement of its constitutional policies and the
preservation of the sanctity of marriage. To this end, it is within
its power to enact laws and regulations, such as Article 352 of the
RPC, as amended, which penalize the commission of acts
resulting in the disintegration and mockery of marriage.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Reynaldo A. Corpuz for petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondent.

 
BRION,  J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari[1]
filed by petitioner Fr. Rene Ronulo challenging the April 3,
2008 decision[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R.
CR No.

_______________
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-26.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr., and concurred in by
Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Ramon M. Bato, Jr.; id., at pp.
28-55.

678

678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ronulo vs. People

31028 which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial

Court, (RTC) Branch 18, Batac, Ilocos Norte.
The Factual Antecedents
The presented evidence showed that[3] Joey Umadac and
Claire Bingayen were scheduled to marry each other on
March 29, 2003 at the Sta. Rosa Catholic Parish Church of
San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte. However, on the day of the
wedding, the supposed officiating priest, Fr. Mario Ragaza,
refused to solemnize the marriage upon learning that the
couple failed to secure a marriage license. As a recourse,
Joey, who was then dressed in barong tagalog, and Claire,
clad in a wedding gown, together with their parents,
sponsors and guests, proceeded to the Independent Church
of Filipino Christians, also known as the Aglipayan
Church. They requested the petitioner, an Aglipayan
priest, to perform a ceremony to which the latter agreed
despite having been informed by the couple that they had
no marriage certificate.
The petitioner prepared his choir and scheduled a mass
for the couple on the same date. He conducted the
ceremony in the presence of the groom, the bride, their
parents, the principal and secondary sponsors and the rest
of their invited guests.[4]
An information for violation of Article 352 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC), as amended, was filed against the
petitioner before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Batac,
Ilocos Norte for allegedly performing an illegal marriage
ceremony.[5]

_______________
[3] From the testimonies of Joseph Yere, id., at pp. 89-90; Mary Anne
Yere, id., at pp. 182-183; the petitioner, id., at pp. 118-123, 129 and 133-
136; Joey Umadac, id., at pp. 145-153; and Dominador Umadac, id., at pp.
166-167.
[4] Id., at p. 30.
[5] Id., at p. 29.

679

VOL. 728, JULY 2, 2014 679

Ronulo vs. People

     The petitioner entered the plea of “not guilty” to the

crime charged on arraignment.
The prosecution’s witnesses, Joseph and Mary Anne
Yere, testified on the incidents of the ceremony. Joseph was
the veil sponsor while Mary Anne was the cord sponsor in
the wedding. Mary Anne testified that she saw the bride
walk down the aisle. She also saw the couple exchange
their wedding rings, kiss each other, and sign a document.
[6] She heard the petitioner instructing the principal
sponsors to sign the marriage contract. Thereafter, they
went to the reception, had lunch and took pictures. She saw
the petitioner there. She also identified the wedding
invitation given to her by Joey.[7]
Florida Umadac, the mother of Joey, testified that she
heard the couple declare during the ceremony that they
take each other as husband and wife.[8] Days after the
wedding, she went to the municipal local civil registrar of
San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte with Atty. Mariano R. Nalupta
Jr. where she was given a certificate that no marriage
license was issued to the couple.[9]
 The petitioner, while admitting that he conducted a
ceremony, denied that his act of blessing the couple was
tantamount to a solemnization of the marriage as
contemplated by law.[10]
The MTC’s Judgment
The MTC found the petitioner guilty of violation of
Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, and imposed on him a
P200.00 fine pursuant to Section 44 of Act No. 3613. It held
that the

_______________
 [6] Id., at p. 35.
 [7] Id., at pp. 36-37.
 [8] Id., at pp. 85-86 (TSN dated August 5, 2004 of Florida Umadac, p.
14).
 [9] Id., at p. 31.
[10] Id., at pp. 49-50.

 
680

680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ronulo vs. People

petitioner’s act of giving a blessing constitutes a marriage

ceremony as he made an official church recognition of the
cohabitation of the couple as husband and wife.[11] It
further ruled that in performing a marriage ceremony
without the couple’s marriage license, the petitioner
violated Article 352 of the RPC which imposes the penalty
provided under Act No. 3613 or the Marriage Law. The
MTC applied Section 44 of the Marriage Law which
pertinently states that a violation of any of its provisions
that is not specifically penalized or of the regulations to be
promulgated, shall be punished by a fine of not more than
two hundred pesos or by imprisonment of not more than
one month, or both, in the discretion of the court.
The RPC is a law subsequent to the Marriage Law, and
provides the penalty for violation of the latter law.
Applying these laws, the MTC imposed the penalty of a fine
in the amount of P200.00.[12]
The RTC’s Ruling
The RTC affirmed the findings of the MTC and added
that the circumstances surrounding the act of the
petitioner in “blessing” the couple unmistakably show that
a marriage ceremony had transpired. It further ruled that
the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses
deserve more credence than the petitioner’s negative
statements.[13] The RTC, however, ruled that the basis of
the fine should be Section 39, instead of Section 44, of the
Marriage Law.
The CA’s Decision
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling. The CA
observed that although there is no prescribed form or
religious rite for the solemnization of marriage, the law
provides mini-

_______________
[11] Id., at pp. 60-61.
[12] Id., at pp. 62-63.
[13] Id., at p. 68.

681

VOL. 728, JULY 2, 2014 681

Ronulo vs. People

mum standards in determining whether a marriage

ceremony has been conducted, viz.: (1) the contracting
parties must appear personally before the solemnizing
officer; and (2) they should declare that they take each
other as husband and wife in the presence of at least two
witnesses of legal age.[14] According to the CA, the
prosecution duly proved these requirements. It added that
the presence of a marriage certificate is not a requirement
in a marriage ceremony.[15]
The CA additionally ruled that the petitioner’s criminal
liability under Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, is not
dependent on whether Joey or Claire were charged or
found guilty under Article 350 of the same Code.[16]
The CA agreed with the MTC that the legal basis for the
imposition of the fine is Section 44 of the Marriage Law
since it covers violation of regulations to be promulgated by
the proper authorities such as the RPC.
The Petition
The petitioner argues that the CA erred on the following
grounds:
First, Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, is vague and
does not define what constitutes “an illegal marriage
ceremony.” Assuming that a marriage ceremony principally
constitutes those enunciated in Article 55 of the Civil Code
and Article 6 of the Family Code, these provisions require
the verbal declaration that the couple take each other as
husband and wife, and a marriage certificate containing
the declaration in writing which is duly signed by the
contracting parties and attested to by the solemnizing
officer.[17] The petitioner likewise maintains that the
prosecution failed to prove that

_______________
[14] Id., at p. 46.
[15] Id., at p. 51.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Id., at pp. 12-14.

682

682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ronulo vs. People

the contracting parties personally declared that they take

each other as husband and wife.[18]
Second, under the principle of separation of church and
State, the State cannot interfere in ecclesiastical affairs
such as the administration of matrimony. Therefore, the
State cannot convert the “blessing” into a “marriage
ceremony.”[19]
Third, the petitioner had no criminal intent as he
conducted the “blessing” in good faith for purposes of giving
moral guidance to the couple.[20]
Fourth, the nonfiling of a criminal case against the
couple in violating Article 350 of the RPC, as amended,
should preclude the filing of the present case against him.
[21]
Finally, Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, does not
provide for a penalty. The present case is not covered by
Section 44 of the Marriage Law as the petitioner was not
found violating its provisions nor a regulation promulgated
thereafter.[22]

The Court’s Ruling

We find the petition unmeritorious.

The elements of the crime

punishable under Article 352 of
the RPC, as amended, were
proven by the prosecution

Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, penalizes an

authorized solemnizing officer who shall perform or
authorize any illegal marriage ceremony. The elements of
this crime are as follows: (1) authority of the solemnizing
officer; and (2) his performance of an illegal marriage
ceremony.

_______________
[18] Id., at p. 15.
[19] Id., at pp. 15-16.
[20] Id., at p. 18.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Id., at p. 19.

683

VOL. 728, JULY 2, 2014 683

Ronulo vs. People

In the present case, the petitioner admitted that he

has authority to solemnize a marriage. Hence, the only
issue to be resolved is whether the alleged “blessing” by the
petitioner is tantamount to the performance of an “illegal
marriage ceremony” which is punishable under Article 352
of the RPC, as amended.
While Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, does not
specifically define a “marriage ceremony” and what
constitutes its “illegal” performance, Articles 3(3) and 6 of
the Family Code are clear on these matters. These
provisions were taken from Article 55[23] of the New Civil
Code which, in turn, was copied from Section 3[24] of the
Marriage Law with no substantial amendments.
Article 6[25] of the Family Code provides that “[n]o
prescribed form or religious rite for the solemnization of the
marriage is

_______________
[23] Art.   55.  No particular form for the ceremony of marriage is
required, but the parties with legal capacity to contract marriage must
declare, in the presence of the person solemnizing the marriage and of two
witnesses of legal age, that they take each other as husband and wife.
This declaration shall be set forth in an instrument in triplicate, signed by
signature or mark by the contracting parties and said two witnesses and
attested by the person solemnizing the marriage.
[24] Mutual Consent.—No particular form for the ceremony of marriage
is required, but the parties with legal capacity to contract marriage must
declare, in the presence of the person solemnizing the marriage and of two
witnesses of legal age, that they take each other as husband and wife.
This declaration shall be set forth in an instrument in triplicate, signed by
signature or mark by the contracting parties and said two witnesses and
attested by the person solemnizing the marriage.
[25] Art.   6.  No prescribed form or religious rite for the solemnization of
the marriage is required. It shall be necessary, however, for the
contracting parties to appear personally before the solemnizing officer and
declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age that
they take each other as husband and wife. This declaration shall be
contained in the marriage certificate which shall be

684

684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ronulo vs. People

required. It shall be necessary, however, for the contracting

parties to appear personally before the solemnizing
officer and declare in the presence of not less than
two witnesses of legal age that they take each other
as husband and wife.”[26]
Pertinently, Article 3(3)[27] mirrors Article 6 of the
Family Code and particularly defines a marriage ceremony
as that which takes place with the appearance of the
contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their
personal declaration that they take each other as husband
and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of
legal age.
Even prior to the date of the enactment of Article 352 of
the RPC, as amended, the rule was clear that no prescribed
form of religious rite for the solemnization of the marriage
is required. However, as correctly found by the CA, the law
sets the minimum requirements constituting a marriage
ceremony: first, there should be the personal appearance of
the contracting parties before a solemnizing officer; and
second, their declaration in the presence of not less than
two witnesses that they take each other as husband and
wife.
As to the first requirement, the petitioner admitted that
the parties appeared before him and this fact was testified
to

_______________
 signed by the contracting parties and their witnesses and attested by
the solemnizing officer.
[26]  This provision was taken from Article 55 of the New Civil Code
which was, in turn, a reproduction of Section 3 of the Marriage Law.
[27] Art.  3.  The formal requisites of marriage are:

(1)   Authority of the solemnizing officer;

 (2)   A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in
Chapter 2 of this Title; and
(3)   A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of
the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal
declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence
of not less than two witnesses of legal age.

685

VOL. 728, JULY 2, 2014 685

Ronulo vs. People

by witnesses. On the second requirement, we find that,

contrary to the petitioner’s allegation, the prosecution has
proven, through the testimony of Florida, that the
contracting parties personally declared that they take each
other as husband and wife.
The petitioner’s allegation that the court asked
insinuating and leading questions to Florida fails to
persuade us. A judge may examine or cross-examine a
witness. He may propound clarificatory questions to test
the credibility of the witness and to extract the truth. He
may seek to draw out relevant and material testimony
though that testimony may tend to support or rebut the
position taken by one or the other party. It cannot be taken
against him if the clarificatory questions he propounds
happen to reveal certain truths that tend to destroy the
theory of one party.[28]
At any rate, if the defense found the line of questioning
of the judge objectionable, its failure to timely register this
bars it from belatedly invoking any irregularity.
In addition, the testimonies of Joseph and Mary Anne,
and even the petitioner’s admission regarding the
circumstances of the ceremony, support Florida’s testimony
that there had indeed been the declaration by the couple
that they take each other as husband and wife. The
testimony of Joey disowning their declaration as husband
and wife cannot overcome these clear and convincing pieces
of evidence. Notably, the defense failed to show that the
prosecution witnesses, Joseph and Mary Anne, had any ill
motive to testify against the petitioner.
We also do not agree with the petitioner that the
principle of separation of church and State precludes the
State from qualifying the church “blessing” into a marriage
ceremony. Contrary to the petitioner’s allegation, this
principle has been duly preserved by Article 6 of the
Family Code when it pro-
_______________
[28]  People v. Zheng Bai Hui, 393 Phil. 68, 115; 338 SCRA 420, 460
(2000).

686

686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ronulo vs. People

vides that no prescribed form or religious rite for the

solemnization of marriage is required. This pronouncement
gives any religion or sect the freedom or latitude in
conducting its respective marital rites, subject only to the
requirement that the core requirements of law be observed.
We emphasize at this point that Article 15[29] of the
Constitution recognizes marriage as an inviolable social
institution and that our family law is based on the policy
that marriage is not a mere contract, but a social
institution in which the State is vitally interested. The
State has paramount interest in the enforcement of its
constitutional policies and the preservation of the sanctity
of marriage. To this end, it is within its power to enact laws
and regulations, such as Article 352 of the RPC, as
amended, which penalize the commission of acts resulting
in the disintegration and mockery of marriage.
From these perspectives, we find it clear that what the
petitioner conducted was a marriage ceremony, as the
minimum requirements set by law were complied with.
While the petitioner may view this merely as a “blessing,”
the presence of the requirements of the law constitutive of
a marriage ceremony qualified this “blessing” into a
“marriage ceremony” as contemplated by Article 3(3) of the
Family Code and Article 352 of the RPC, as amended.
We come now to the issue of whether the solemnization
by the petitioner of this marriage ceremony was illegal.
Under Article 3(3) of the Family Code, one of the
essential requisites of marriage is the presence of a valid
marriage certificate. In the present case, the petitioner
admitted that he knew that the couple had no marriage
license, yet he conducted the “blessing” of their
relationship.

_______________
[29]  Section   1.  The State recognizes the Filipino family as the
foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and
actively promote its total development.
 Section  2.  Marriage, an inviolable social institution, is the foundation
of the family and shall be protected by the State.

687

VOL. 728, JULY 2, 2014 687

Ronulo vs. People

Undoubtedly, the petitioner conducted the marriage

ceremony despite knowledge that the essential and
formal requirements of marriage set by law were
lacking. The marriage ceremony, therefore, was illegal.
The petitioner’s knowledge of the absence of these
requirements negates his defense of good faith.
We also do not agree with the petitioner that the lack of
a marriage certificate negates his criminal liability in the
present case. For purposes of determining if a marriage
ceremony has been conducted, a marriage certificate is not
included in the requirements provided by Article 3(3) of the
Family Code, as discussed above.
Neither does the nonfiling of a criminal complaint
against the couple negate criminal liability of the
petitioner. Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, does not
make this an element of the crime.
The penalty imposed is proper
On the issue on the penalty for violation of Article 352 of
the RPC, as amended, this provision clearly provides that it
shall be imposed in accordance with the provision of the
Marriage Law. The penalty provisions of the Marriage Law
are Sections 39 and 44 which provide as follows:
Section 39 of the Marriage Law provides that:

Section  39.  Illegal Solemnization of Marriage.—Any priest or

minister solemnizing marriage without being authorized by the
Director of the Philippine National Library or who, upon
solemnizing marriage, refuses to exhibit the authorization in force
when called upon to do so by the parties or parents, grandparents,
guardians, or persons having charge and any bishop or officer,
priest, or minister of any church, religion or sect the regulations
and practices whereof require banns or publications previous to
the solemnization of a marriage in accordance with section ten,
who authorized the immediate solemni-

688

688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ronulo vs. People
zation of a marriage that is subsequently declared illegal; or any
officer, priest or minister solemnizing marriage in
violation of this act, shall be punished by imprisonment for not
less than one month nor more than two years, or by a fine of not
less than two hundred pesos nor more than two thousand pesos.
[emphasis ours]

 
On the other hand, Section 44 of the Marriage Law
states that:
Section  44.  General Penal Clause.—Any violation of
any provision of this Act not specifically penalized, or of
the regulations to be promulgated by the proper
authorities, shall be punished by a fine of not more than
two hundred pesos or by imprisonment for not more than
one month, or both, in the discretion of the court.
[emphasis ours]
From a reading of the provisions cited above, we find
merit in the ruling of the CA and the MTC that the penalty
imposable in the present case is that covered under Section
44, and not Section 39, of the Marriage Law.
The penalized acts under Section 39 of Act No. 3613 do
not include the present case. As correctly found by the
MTC, the petitioner was not found violating the provisions
of the Marriage Law but Article 352 of the RPC, as
amended. It is only the imposition of the penalty for the
violation of this provision which is referred to the Marriage
Law. On this point, Article 352 falls squarely under the
provision of Section 44 of Act No. 3613 which provides for
the penalty for any violation of the regulations to be
promulgated by the proper authorities; Article 352 of the
RPC, as amended, which was enacted after the Marriage
Law, is one of such regulations.
Therefore, the CA did not err in imposing the penalty of
fine of P200.00 pursuant to Section 44 of the Marriage
Law.
689

VOL. 728, JULY 2, 2014 689

Ronulo vs. People

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition and affirm the

decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 3, 2008 in C.A.-
G.R. CR No. 31028.
SO ORDERED.
 Carpio (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Perez and Perlas-
Bernabe, JJ., concur.

Petition denied.

Notes.—The formal requisites of marriage are: (1)

Authority of the solemnizing officer; (2) A valid marriage
license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this
Title; and (3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with
the appearance of the contracting parties before the
solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they
take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not
less than two witnesses of legal age. (Abbas vs. Abbas, 689
SCRA 646 [2013])
The certification of the Local Civil Registrar that their
office had no record of a marriage license was adequate to
prove the non-issuance of said license. (Id.)

——o0o——

 
 

 
 

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.