People v. Lasanas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Noel Lasanas (petitioner) married Socorro Patingo on February 16, 1968, solemnized without a marriage license and without an affidavit of cohabitation. They reaffirmed their vows on August 27, 1980, again without a marriage license or affidavit of cohabitation. They separated in 1982. On December 27, 1993, Lasanas married Josefa Eslaban, with his civil status declared as single on the marriage certificate. In 1996, Lasanas filed an annulment case against Socorro, alleging deceit and marital breaches. In 1998, Socorro charged Lasanas with bigamy. The RTC dismissed Lasanas' annulment case, declaring his marriage to Socorro valid and legal, and ordered him to provide support. Subsequently, the RTC found Lasanas guilty of bigamy. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 38, Iloilo City, convicted Noel Lasanas of bigamy and imposed an indeterminate penalty. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction. Lasanas appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Lasanas argued that the RTC and CA erred in applying Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, asserting that Article 40 of the Family Code requiring a judicial declaration of nullity should not apply in a criminal prosecution. He also contended that his second marriage was void for lack of a recorded judgment of nullity, thus an essential element of bigamy (a valid subsequent marriage) was missing. He further claimed good faith and absence of criminal intent should absolve him.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused is guilty of bigamy despite the alleged void nature of his first marriage and the absence of a judicial declaration of nullity prior to his second marriage. Whether the requirement of a judicial declaration of nullity under Article 40 of the Family Code applies in a criminal prosecution for bigamy. Whether the accused's good faith and absence of criminal intent can absolve him from criminal liability for bigamy.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the conviction of Noel Lasanas for bigamy. The Court ruled that contracting a second marriage without a prior judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage, even if void ab initio, constitutes bigamy. The requirement under Article 40 of the Family Code is mandatory for contracting a subsequent marriage, and failure to comply makes the offender liable for bigamy. Good faith is not a defense in such cases.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the accused is guilty of bigamy despite the alleged void nature of his first marriage and the absence of a judicial declaration of nullity prior to his second marriage: The Court held that the accused is guilty of bigamy. The elements of bigamy are: (1) that the offender has been legally married; (2) that the marriage has not been legally dissolved or the absent spouse cannot be presumed dead; (3) that the offender contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and (4) that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. While the first marriage was void due to the absence of a marriage license and affidavit of cohabitation, it was not judicially declared void before the second marriage was contracted. Article 40 of the Family Code mandates that the absolute nullity of a previous marriage must be invoked solely on the basis of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. Therefore, until a judicial declaration of nullity was obtained, the first marriage was legally subsisting for purposes of bigamy. The accused contracted a second marriage without the first marriage being legally dissolved by a court, thus fulfilling the elements of bigamy. On the issue of whether the requirement of a judicial declaration of nullity under Article 40 of the Family Code applies in a criminal prosecution for bigamy: The Court affirmed that Article 40 of the Family Code applies even in criminal prosecutions for bigamy. The Family Code settled conflicting jurisprudence by requiring a judicial declaration of nullity before a subsequent marriage can be contracted. This requirement is for the protection of the spouse who believes their marriage is illegal and void, as it prevents them from being charged with bigamy. Allowing individuals to assume their marriage is void without a court declaration would make the crime of bigamy dependent on the speed of the prosecution, which is against the clear intent of the law. The crime of bigamy is consummated the moment a second marriage is contracted without the first being judicially declared null and void, as it is still deemed valid and subsisting until such declaration. On the issue of whether the accused's good faith and absence of criminal intent can absolve him from criminal liability for bigamy: The Court ruled that good faith is not a defense against bigamy in this context. The accused's argument that his subsequent marriage was void because it lacked a recorded judgment of nullity was rejected, as he was the one who failed to secure the judicial declaration of nullity prior to his second marriage. The Court reiterated that a marriage contracted during the subsistence of a valid marriage is automatically void, but the nullity of the second marriage does not absolve the offender from criminal liability for bigamy. The law penalizes the mere act of contracting a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage. The accused assumed the risk of prosecution by marrying again before obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity for his first marriage.
Main Doctrine
A person who contracts a second marriage without first obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity of his prior void marriage is guilty of bigamy, even if the prior marriage was void ab initio. The requirement of a judicial declaration of nullity under Article 40 of the Family Code is mandatory for contracting a subsequent marriage, and failure to comply renders the subsequent marriage void and the contracting party liable for bigamy.