People v. Abunado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Salvador S. Abunado (Salvador) married Narcisa Arceño on September 18, 1967. Narcisa left for Japan in 1988 and returned in 1992, discovering Salvador was cohabiting with Fe Corazon Plato and had contracted a second marriage with Zenaida Biñas on January 10, 1989. Salvador admitted a prior marriage to Zenaida Biñas on December 24, 1955, with whom he had children, but claimed no evidence of this marriage existed, leading to their remarriage in 1989 at their son's request for military commission compliance. Salvador filed an annulment case against Narcisa on January 19, 1995, and Narcisa filed a bigamy case against Salvador and Zenaida on May 18, 1995. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Salvador of bigamy and sentenced him to six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years and one (1) day imprisonment. Zenaida Biñas was acquitted. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty, sentencing Salvador to an indeterminate prison term of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum, considering his age as a mitigating circumstance. The Petition: Salvador filed a petition for review on certiorari, arguing the Information was defective, Narcisa consented to the second marriage, the annulment case posed a prejudicial question, and the penalty imposed was improper.
Issue(s)
Whether the Information was defective due to a typographical error in the year the bigamous marriage was contracted. Whether Narcisa Arceño's consent to Salvador's marriage to Zenaida Biñas absolved him of criminal liability for bigamy. Whether the pendency of Salvador's annulment case constituted a prejudicial question that should have suspended the bigamy proceedings. Whether the penalty imposed on Salvador was proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding Salvador S. Abunado guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy and sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.
Ratio Decidendi
On the defective Information: The Court ruled that the Information was not defective. While it contained a typographical error stating the bigamous marriage was contracted in January 1995, the same Information clearly stated the marriage to Zenaida Biñas occurred on January 10, 1989. The accused has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and the real nature of the crime is determined by the facts alleged, not the caption. The petitioner was sufficiently informed of the charge. Furthermore, the defect, if any, was cured by the evidence presented during trial, and the petitioner failed to object to the alleged defect until appeal, which is considered a waiver. On Narcisa's consent: The Court held that even if Narcisa had consented, it would not absolve Salvador of criminal liability for bigamy. Bigamy is a public offense committed against the State, not solely against the offended party. A pardon or condonation by the offended party does not extinguish the criminal action. The alleged consent was also not established by clear and convincing evidence. On the prejudicial question: The Court found that the annulment case did not constitute a prejudicial question that would suspend the bigamy proceedings. A prejudicial question requires a fact distinct from the crime but intimately connected, determining guilt or innocence. While the annulment case involved the validity of the first marriage, the crime of bigamy had already been consummated when the second marriage was contracted. The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage was immaterial because, at the time of the second marriage, the first marriage was subsisting. Allowing such a defense would enable accused to delay bigamy prosecutions by simply filing annulment cases. On the proper penalty: The Court affirmed the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals. Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes prision mayor for bigamy. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and considering Salvador's age (76 years) as a mitigating circumstance, the CA correctly imposed an indeterminate sentence. The maximum term was taken from prision mayor in its minimum period, and the minimum term was taken from prision correccional in its appropriate period, resulting in the penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum.
Main Doctrine
A subsequent marriage contracted during the subsistence of a prior marriage, even if the prior marriage is later declared void ab initio, constitutes bigamy if no judicial declaration of nullity of the prior marriage was obtained before the second marriage was contracted, as per Article 40 of the Family Code.