People v. Vitangcol
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Norberto A. Vitangcol married Alice G. Eduardo on December 4, 1994, and they had three children. Alice later discovered that Norberto was previously married to Gina M. Gaerlan on July 17, 1987. Norberto admitted to Alice that his marriage to Gina was a "fake marriage" but proceeded with the wedding with Alice. Procedural History: The Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila charged Norberto with bigamy. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila convicted Norberto of bigamy and sentenced him to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve (12) years of prision mayor as maximum. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional as minimum to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum. The CA denied Norberto's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Norberto filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that the first element of bigamy (a legally existing first marriage) was absent due to the lack of a marriage license for his first marriage with Gina, as evidenced by a Certification from the Civil Registrar. He also contended that legal dissolution of the first marriage is not an element of bigamy.
Issue(s)
Whether the Certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar stating no record of a marriage license proves the nullity of the first marriage and exculpates the petitioner from the charge of bigamy. Whether the petitioner is guilty of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification. Petitioner Norberto A. Vitangcol was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Certification from the Civil Registrar: The Court held that a Certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar stating that it has no record of a marriage license does not categorically prove that no such license was issued or that the marriage is void. The Court distinguished this case from Republic v. Court of Appeals and Castro and Nicdao Cariño v. Yee Cariño, noting that the present case involves a criminal prosecution for bigamy, making the issuance of such a certification suspect. The Court emphasized that the existence of a marriage contract, duly signed and attested, is a positive piece of evidence that should be given greater credence than a certification of absence of record, especially when the accused has not sought a judicial declaration of nullity for over seven years. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions, when applied to the issuance of the marriage license mentioned in the marriage contract, supports the existence of the license. On the guilt of the petitioner for bigamy: The Court found that all the elements of bigamy were present. First, the petitioner was legally married to Gina M. Gaerlan, as evidenced by a marriage contract. Second, this first marriage was not legally dissolved, nor was Gina judicially declared presumptively dead. The Court reiterated the ruling in Landicho v. Relova, et al. and Article 40 of the Family Code, stating that the absolute nullity of a previous marriage must be invoked solely on the basis of a final judgment declaring such marriage void. Contracting a second marriage without a judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage carries the risk of prosecution for bigamy. Third, the petitioner contracted a second marriage with Alice G. Eduardo. Fourth, the second marriage had all the essential requisites for validity, which is presumed. Therefore, the crime of bigamy was consummated when the petitioner contracted the second marriage without his first marriage to Gina having been judicially declared void.
Main Doctrine
A person who contracts a second marriage without a judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage, even if the first marriage was solemnized without a marriage license, is guilty of bigamy. The validity of the first marriage is beyond question until judicially declared void, and contracting a second marriage under such circumstances carries the risk of prosecution for bigamy.