6 Teves v People

8/10/15 10:18 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 656

of 10http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f17f94e0c00c26c9e000a0094004f00ee/p/AMJ786/?username=Guest

G.R. No. 188775. August 24, 2011.*

CENON R. TEVES, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES and DANILO R. BONGALON, respondents.

Criminal Law; Bigamy; Elements.·Article 349 of theRevised Penal Code states: The penalty of prision mayor shallbe imposed upon any person who shall contract a second orsubsequent marriage before the former marriage has beenlegally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declaredpresumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in theproper proceedings. The elements of this crime are as follows:1. That the offender has been legally married; 2. That themarriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or herspouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumeddead according to the Civil Code; 3. That he contracts a secondor subsequent marriage; and 4. That the second or subsequentmarriage has all the essential requisites for validity.

Same; Same; Declaration of Nullity of Marriage; Where theabsolute nullity of a previous marriage is sought to be invokedfor purposes of contracting a second marriage, the sole basisacceptable in law for said projected marriage to be free fromlegal infirmity is a final judgment declaring the previousmarriage void.·It is evident therefore that petitioner hascommitted the crime charged. His contention that he cannot becharged with bigamy in view of the declaration of nullity of hisfirst marriage is bereft of merit. The Family Code has settledonce and for all the conflicting jurisprudence on the matter. Adeclaration of the absolute nullity of a mar-

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

308

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f17f94e0c00c26c9e000a0094004f00ee/p/AMJ786/?username=Guest#ftn1

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f17f94e0c00c26c9e000a0094004f00ee/p/AMJ786/?username=Jeric#body_ftn1



308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Teves vs. People

riage is now explicitly required either as a cause of action or aground for defense. Where the absolute nullity of a previousmarriage is sought to be invoked for purposes of contracting asecond marriage, the sole basis acceptable in law for saidprojected marriage to be free from legal infirmity is a finaljudgment declaring the previous marriage void.

Same; Same; Same; The finality of the judicial declarationof the nullity of previous marriage of the accused cannot bemade to retroact to the date of the bigamous marriage.·Settledis the rule that criminal culpability attaches to the offenderupon the commission of the offense, and from that instant,liability appends to him until extinguished as provided by law,and that the time of filing of the criminal complaint (orInformation, in proper cases) is material only for determiningprescription. The crime of bigamy was committed by petitioneron 10 December 2001 when he contracted a second marriagewith Edita. The finality on 27 June 2006 of the judicialdeclaration of the nullity of his previous marriage to Thelmacannot be made to retroact to the date of the bigamousmarriage.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of theCourt of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. R.R. Mendez & Associates Law Offices for petitioner. Office of the Solicitor General for respondents.

PEREZ, J.:This Petition for Review seeks the reversal of the 21

January 2009 decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 31125 affirming in toto the decision of theRegional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Malolos City inCriminal Case No. 2070-M-2006. The RTC decision2 foundpetitioner Cenon R.

_______________1 Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato. Jr., and






Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now a member ofthis Court) and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, concurring; CARollo, pp. 75-86.

2 Records, pp. 156-162.

309

VOL. 656, AUGUST 24, 2011 309

Teves vs. People

Teves guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime ofBigamy penalized under Article 349 of the Revised PenalCode.

The Facts

On 26 November 1992, a marriage was solemnizedbetween Cenon Teves (Cenon) and Thelma Jaime-Teves(Thelma) at the Metropolitan Trial Court of MuntinlupaCity, Metro Manila.3

After the marriage, Thelma left to work abroad. Shewould only come home to the Philippines for vacations.While on a vacation in 2002, she was informed that herhusband had contracted marriage with a certain EditaCalderon (Edita). To verify the information, she went to theNational Statistics Office and secured a copy of theCertificate of Marriage4 indicating that her husband andEdita contracted marriage on 10 December 2001 at theDivine Trust Consulting Services, Malhacan, Meycauayan,Bulacan.

On 13 February 2006, Danilo Bongalon, uncle ofThelma, filed before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutorof Malolos City, Bulacan a complaint5 accusing petitionerof committing bigamy.

Petitioner was charged on 8 June 2006 with bigamydefined and penalized under Article 349 of the RevisedPenal Code, as amended, in an Information6 which reads:

„That on or about the 10th day of December, 2001 up to thepresent, in the municipality of Meycauayan, province ofBulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of thisHonorable Court, the said Cenon R. Teves being previously








united in lawful marriage on November 26, 1992 with ThelmaB. Jaime and without the said marriage having legallydissolved, did then and there willfully, unlaw-

_______________3 Id., at p. 13.4 Id., at p. 11.5 Id., at p. 6.6 Id., at p. 2.

310


Teves vs. People

fully and feloniously contract a second marriage with one EditaT. Calderon, who knowing of the criminal design of accusedCenon R. Teves to marry her and in concurrence thereof, didthen and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously cooperatein the execution of the offense by marrying Cenon R. Teves,knowing fully well of the existence of the marriage of the latterwith Thelma B. Jaime.‰

During the pendency of the criminal case for bigamy, theRegional Trial Court, Branch 130, Caloocan City, rendereda decision7 dated 4 May 2006 declaring the marriage ofpetitioner and Thelma null and void on the ground thatThelma is physically incapacitated to comply with heressential marital obligations pursuant to Article 36 of theFamily Code. Said decision became final by virtue of aCertification of Finality8 issued on 27 June 2006.

On 15 August 2007, the trial court rendered its assaileddecision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

„WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is herebyrendered finding the accused Cenon R. Teves, also known asCenon Avelino R. Teves, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of thecrime of Bigamy penalized under Article 349 of the RevisedPenal Code, as charged in the Information dated June 8, 2006.Pursuant to the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law,he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment offour (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision









correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years and one (1) day ofprision mayor, as maximum.‰9

Refusing to accept such verdict, petitioner appealed thedecision before the Court of Appeals contending that thecourt a quo erred in not ruling that his criminal action orliability had already been extinguished. He also claimedthat the trial court erred in finding him guilty of Bigamydespite the defective Information filed by theprosecution.10

_______________7 Id., at pp. 82-90.8 Id., at pp. 91-92.9 Id., at p. 162.10 CA Rollo, p. 25. AppellantÊs Brief.

311

VOL. 656, AUGUST 24, 2011 311

Teves vs. People

On 21 January 2009, the CA promulgated its decision,the dispositive portion of which reads:

„WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the Decisiondated August 15, 2007 in Criminal Case No. 2070-M-2006 isAFFIRMED in TOTO.‰11

On 11 February 2009, petitioner filed a motion forreconsideration of the decision.12 This however, was deniedby the CA in a resolution issued on 2 July 2009.13

Hence, this petition.Petitioner claims that since his previous marriage was

declared null and void, „there is in effect no marriage at all,and thus, there is no bigamy to speak of.‰14 Hedifferentiates a previous valid or voidable marriage from amarriage null and void ab initio, and posits that the formerrequires a judicial dissolution before one can validlycontract a second marriage but a void marriage, for thesame purpose, need not be judicially determined.

Petitioner further contends that the ruling of the Court













in Mercado v. Tan15 is inapplicable in his case because inthe Mercado case the prosecution for bigamy was initiatedbefore the declaration of nullity of marriage was filed. InpetitionerÊs case, the first marriage had already beenlegally dissolved at the time the bigamy case was filed incourt.

We find no reason to disturb the findings of the CA.There is nothing in the law that would sustain petitionerÊscontention.

Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code states:

_______________11 Id., at p. 85.12 Id., at pp. 89-99.13 Id., at pp. 114-115.14 Rollo, p. 2415 G.R. No. 137110, 1 August 2000, 337 SCRA 122.

312


Teves vs. People

„The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon anyperson who shall contract a second or subsequent marriagebefore the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or beforethe absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead bymeans of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings.

The elements of this crime are as follows:1. That the offender has been legally married;2. That the marriage has not been legally dissolved or,

in case his or her spouse is absent, the absentspouse could not yet be presumed dead according tothe Civil Code;

3. That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage;and

4. That the second or subsequent marriage has all theessential requisites for validity.‰16

The instant case has all the elements of the crime ofbigamy. Thus, the CA was correct in affirming the










conviction of petitioner.Petitioner was legally married to Thelma on 26

November 1992 at the Metropolitan Trial Court ofMuntinlupa City. He contracted a second or subsequentmarriage with Edita on 10 December 2001 in Meycauayan,Bulacan. At the time of his second marriage with Edita, hismarriage with Thelma was legally subsisting. It is notedthat the finality of the decision declaring the nullity of hisfirst marriage with Thelma was only on 27 June 2006 orabout five (5) years after his second marriage to Edita.Finally, the second or subsequent marriage of petitionerwith Edita has all the essential requisites for validity.Petitioner has in fact not disputed the validity of suchsubsequent marriage.17

It is evident therefore that petitioner has committed thecrime charged. His contention that he cannot be chargedwith bigamy in view of the declaration of nullity of his firstmar-

_______________16 Tenebro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150758, 18

February 2004 423 SCRA, 272, 279 citing Reyes, L.B., theRevised Penal Code, Book II, 14th Ed., 1998, p. 907.

17 CA Rollo, p. 62.

313

VOL. 656, AUGUST 24, 2011 313

Teves vs. People

riage is bereft of merit. The Family Code has settled onceand for all the conflicting jurisprudence on the matter. Adeclaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage is nowexplicitly required either as a cause of action or a groundfor defense. Where the absolute nullity of a previousmarriage is sought to be invoked for purposes ofcontracting a second marriage, the sole basis acceptable inlaw for said projected marriage to be free from legalinfirmity is a final judgment declaring the previousmarriage void.18

The Family Law Revision Committee and the Civil Code







Revision Committee which drafted what is now the FamilyCode of the Philippines took the position that parties to amarriage should not be allowed to assume that theirmarriage is void even if such be the fact but must firstsecure a judicial declaration of the nullity of their marriagebefore they can be allowed to marry again.19

In fact, the requirement for a declaration of absolutenullity of a marriage is also for the protection of the spousewho, believing that his or her marriage is illegal and void,marries again. With the judicial declaration of the nullityof his or her marriage, the person who marries againcannot be charged with bigamy.20

In numerous cases,21 this Court has consistently heldthat a judicial declaration of nullity is required before avalid subse-

_______________18 Domingo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104818, 17

September 1993, 226 SCRA 572, 579.19 Id., at pp. 579-580.20 Id., at p. 582, citing J.A.V. Sempio-Diy, Handbook of the

Family Code of the Philippines, p. 46 (1988).21 A.M. No. 2008-20-SC, 15 March 2010, 615 SCRA 186,

198-199, Re: Complaint of Mrs. Corazon S. Salvador againstSps. Noel and Amelia Serafico citing Morigo v. People, G.R. No.145226, 6 February 2004, 422 SCRA 376; Domingo v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 194818, 17 September 1993, 226 SCRA 572;Terre v. Terre, A.C. No. 2349, 3 July 1992, 211 SCRA 7; Wiegelv. Sempio-Diy, No. L-53703, 19 August 1986, 143 SCRA 499;Vda. De Consuegra v. Gov-

314


Teves vs. People

quent marriage can be contracted; or else, what transpiresis a bigamous marriage, reprehensible and immoral.

If petitionerÊs contention would be allowed, a person whocommits bigamy can simply evade prosecution byimmediately filing a petition for the declaration of nullity of










his earlier marriage and hope that a favorable decision isrendered therein before anyone institutes a complaintagainst him. We note that in petitionerÊs case thecomplaint was filed before the first marriage was declareda nullity. It was only the filing of the Information that wasovertaken by the declaration of nullity of his first marriage.Following petitionerÊs argument, even assuming that acomplaint has been instituted, such as in this case, theoffender can still escape liability provided that a decisionnullifying his earlier marriage precedes the filing of theInformation in court. Such cannot be allowed. To do sowould make the crime of bigamy dependent upon theability or inability of the Office of the Public Prosecutor toimmediately act on complaints and eventually fileInformations in court. Plainly, petitionerÊs strained readingof the law is against its simple letter.

Settled is the rule that criminal culpability attaches tothe offender upon the commission of the offense, and fromthat instant, liability appends to him until extinguished asprovided by law, and that the time of filing of the criminalcomplaint (or Information, in proper cases) is material onlyfor determining prescription.22 The crime of bigamy wascommitted by petitioner on 10 December 2001 when hecontracted a second marriage with Edita. The finality on 27June 2006 of the judicial declaration of the nullity of hisprevious marriage to Thelma cannot be made to retroact tothe date of the bigamous marriage.

_______________ernment Service Insurance System, No. L-28093, 30 January

1971, 37 SCRA 315; Gomez v. Lipana, No. L-23214, 30 June1970, 33 SCRA 614.

22 De Jesus v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101630, 24 August1992, 212 SCRA 823, 830.

315

VOL. 656, AUGUST 24, 2011 315

Teves vs. People

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review is





DENIED and the assailed Decision dated 21 January 2009of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED in toto.

Costs against petitioner.SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Peralta** andMendoza,*** JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment affirmed.

Note.·The pendency of a civil case for declaration ofnullity of marriage is not a prejudicial question in aprosecution for concubinage or bigamy. (Marbella-Bobis vs.Bobis, 336 SCRA 747 [2000])

··o0o··

© Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 Teves v People

Documents

Transcript of 6 Teves v People