People v. Tenebro
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Veronico Tenebro married Hilda Villareyes on November 10, 1986. On April 10, 1990, while the first marriage was allegedly subsisting, Tenebro married Leticia Ancajas. Tenebro later informed Ancajas of his prior marriage to Villareyes and left her to cohabit with Villareyes. On January 25, 1993, Tenebro contracted a third marriage with Nilda Villegas. Ancajas filed a complaint for bigamy against Tenebro. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Tenebro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, and Tenebro's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Tenebro filed a petition for review, arguing that the first marriage did not exist and that the subsequent declaration of nullity of his marriage to Ancajas on the ground of psychological incapacity retroacted to the date of its celebration, thus negating the crime of bigamy.
Issue(s)
Whether the existence of the first marriage between petitioner and Hilda Villareyes was sufficiently proven. Whether a subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the second marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity retroacts to the date of its celebration, thereby negating criminal liability for bigamy.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals convicting petitioner Veronico Tenebro of bigamy and sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, is affirmed in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the existence of the first marriage: The prosecution presented sufficient evidence, both documentary and oral, to prove the existence of the first marriage between petitioner and Villareyes. This included a certified copy of the marriage contract dated November 10, 1986, and a handwritten letter from Villareyes confirming the marriage. While the defense presented certifications from the National Statistics Office and the City Civil Registry of Manila stating no record of the marriage, these documents merely attested to the absence of a record, not the absence of the marriage ceremony or its invalidity. The Court held that a certified copy of a marriage contract, issued by a public officer, is admissible as best evidence and should be accorded full faith and credence. The absence of a record does not invalidate a marriage if all requisites for its validity are present, and no evidence was presented to indicate the lack of such requisites apart from the accused's self-serving testimony. The certifications were also dated after the second marriage, diminishing their relevance. On the effect of the subsequent declaration of nullity on criminal liability for bigamy: The Court held that a subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of a marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity does not retroact to the date of the celebration of the marriage for purposes of penal laws. The crime of bigamy is consummated as soon as the second marriage is celebrated during the subsistence of a valid first marriage. The Revised Penal Code penalizes the mere act of contracting a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage. The nullity of the second marriage, whether purely due to being a second marriage or due to psychological incapacity, does not negate the criminal liability for bigamy. The essential and formal requisites for the validity of the marriage between petitioner and Ancajas were satisfied at the time of its celebration. While a declaration of nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity retroacts to the date of celebration concerning the vinculum between spouses, it does not erase the fact that a second marriage was contracted during the subsistence of a valid prior marriage, which is the very act penalized by Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. To hold otherwise would render the State's penal laws on bigamy nugatory.
Main Doctrine
A subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of a marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity does not retroact to the date of the celebration of the marriage for purposes of penal laws. An individual who contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage is criminally liable for bigamy, notwithstanding the subsequent declaration that the second marriage is void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity.