People v. Teves
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Cenon R. Teves (Cenon) contracted a marriage with Thelma Jaime-Teves (Thelma) on November 26, 1992. Thelma left to work abroad and would only return for vacations. In 2002, Thelma learned that Cenon had contracted a second marriage with Edita Calderon on December 10, 2001. Thelma verified this by obtaining a Certificate of Marriage. Procedural History: On February 13, 2006, Danilo Bongalon, Thelma's uncle, filed a complaint for bigamy against Cenon. An Information was filed on June 8, 2006, charging Cenon with bigamy for contracting a second marriage with Edita while his marriage with Thelma was still legally subsisting. During the pendency of the criminal case, a Regional Trial Court declared the marriage between Cenon and Thelma null and void on May 4, 2006, on the ground of Thelma's physical incapacity to comply with marital obligations, pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code. This decision became final on June 27, 2006. The RTC found Cenon guilty of bigamy on August 15, 2007. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision on January 21, 2009. The Supreme Court denied Cenon's motion for reconsideration on July 2, 2009. The Petition: Petitioner sought the reversal of the CA decision, arguing that since his first marriage was declared null and void, there was no marriage to speak of, and thus no bigamy. He contended that a void marriage does not require judicial dissolution before contracting a second marriage, unlike a voidable marriage. He also argued that the ruling in Mercado v. Tan was inapplicable as the bigamy case was filed after the declaration of nullity of his first marriage.
Issue(s)
Whether the declaration of nullity of the first marriage, rendered after the second marriage was contracted and after the filing of the criminal complaint for bigamy, can extinguish the criminal liability for bigamy. Whether the accused can be held guilty of bigamy despite the subsequent declaration of nullity of his first marriage.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the conviction of petitioner Cenon R. Teves for the crime of Bigamy.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the declaration of nullity of the first marriage extinguishes criminal liability for bigamy: The Court held that a judicial declaration of nullity of a prior marriage is required before a subsequent marriage can be considered legally valid and to avoid prosecution for bigamy. The Family Code settled this matter, requiring a final judgment declaring the previous marriage void as the sole basis for a projected marriage to be free from legal infirmity. The Family Law Revision Committee and the Civil Code Revision Committee intended that parties must first secure a judicial declaration of nullity before marrying again. This requirement is also for the protection of the spouse who believes their marriage is void. The Court emphasized that the crime of bigamy was committed on December 10, 2001, when the petitioner contracted the second marriage. The finality of the judicial declaration of nullity of his previous marriage on June 27, 2006, cannot retroact to the date of the bigamous marriage to absolve him. The Court noted that the criminal complaint was filed before the first marriage was declared a nullity, and even if the Information was filed later, the crime had already been committed. On the issue of whether the accused can be held guilty of bigamy despite the subsequent declaration of nullity of his first marriage: The Court found that all the elements of the crime of bigamy were present. Petitioner was legally married to Thelma on November 26, 1992. He contracted a second marriage with Edita on December 10, 2001. At the time of the second marriage, his marriage with Thelma was legally subsisting, as the decision declaring its nullity only became final on June 27, 2006, approximately five years after the second marriage. The second marriage with Edita had all the essential requisites for validity, which the petitioner did not dispute. The Court reiterated that the law does not allow parties to assume their marriage is void without a judicial declaration. To allow petitioner's contention would make the crime of bigamy dependent on the speed of the prosecution in filing an Information, which is contrary to the principle that criminal culpability attaches upon the commission of the offense.
Main Doctrine
A judicial declaration of nullity of a prior marriage is required before a subsequent marriage can be considered legally valid and to avoid prosecution for bigamy, even if the prior marriage is void ab initio. The declaration of nullity cannot retroact to the date of the bigamous marriage to absolve the offender.