Bonbon v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Erwin Bonbon y Tia legally married Gemma Cunada on January 3, 1988 in Cagayan de Oro City, with their marriage subsisting without dissolution or presumption of death. While this first marriage remained valid, Erwin contracted a second marriage with Rizalina Marcos on June 18, 1994, and a third marriage with Elizabeth Brua on February 1, 1999 in Baungon, Bukidnon, solemnized by the Municipal Mayor. In 1995, Erwin impregnated Elizabeth, leading his mother Necitas Tia Bonbon and siblings, including Cecile Bonbon Waga and Alice Bonbon-Ong, to conceal his prior marriage and arrange the union to secure his children (Mae Ann born July 1, 1996; James Brian born March 31, 1998), promising a church wedding but opting for a 'secret' civil ceremony. Elizabeth's family visited Erwin's mother for blessings, but Necitas refused, citing Erwin's married status; Cecile later informed Elizabeth of Erwin's marriage to Gemma and their child upon inquiry in Divisoria, Cagayan de Oro in 1998. In 2020, Cecile and Alice discovered the multiple marriages via PSA Certification obtained for their mother's GSIS benefits, revealing Erwin's third marriage; they filed a bigamy complaint with NBI, supported by marriage certificates subpoenaed from PSA showing Elizabeth's prior knowledge despite family distress over her living as Erwin's mistress in the Bonbon compound, Nazareth, Cagayan de Oro City. Erwin and Elizabeth claimed no intent, family-prodded signing of a blank contract without ceremony in Libona, Bukidnon (Mayor absent), and Elizabeth's 2012 discovery of prior marriages via PSA, feeling betrayed. Procedural History: Information dated November 9, 2021 charged Erwin and Elizabeth with bigamy under Article 349, RPC; arraigned January 18, 2022, pleaded not guilty. Prosecution presented Cecile, Alice (corroborating knowledge concealment), and NBI Atty. Chemene Nacua (subpoenaed PSA certificates; accused responded via denial letter May 18, 2021). Defense: Erwin denied intent, blamed family; Elizabeth denied knowledge, claimed secret wedding per mother-in-law. RTC Branch 11, Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon convicted both June 27, 2022: Erwin principal (4 years 2 months prision correccional medium min to 8 years 1 day prision mayor medium max); Elizabeth accomplice (6 months arresto mayor max min to 4 years 2 months prision correccional medium max), applying Indeterminate Sentence Law, no agr/mtg circs. Only Erwin appealed to CA (CA-G.R. CR No. 02312-MIN), affirmed September 8, 2023, denying MR January 19, 2024. The Petition: Erwin's Rule 45 Petition assails CA for dismissing appeal, affirming RTC conviction; argues (a) prescription barred action (sisters knew since 1999 via family involvement, constructive notice from 1999 registration); (b) fourth bigamy element absent as marriage with Elizabeth void ab initio (no ceremony, blank contract signed sans mayor), rebutting presumption; (c) CA erred sustaining RTC credibility findings despite inconsistencies.
Issue(s)
Whether the crime of bigamy had prescribed, reckoning from 1999 registration or family knowledge vice 2020 discovery. Whether the fourth element of bigamy (validity of subsequent marriage) was proven beyond reasonable doubt, given defense of sham ceremony.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated September 8, 2023 and Resolution dated January 19, 2024 of the CA in CA-G.R. CR No. 02312-MIN are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On Prescription: The 15-year prescriptive period for bigamy (prision mayor, afflictive penalty under Article 90, RPC) commences from discovery by offended party, authorities, or agents per Article 91, RPC, not registration, as reiterated in Sermonia v. Court of Appeals (303 Phil. 165, 1994), rejecting constructive notice due to bigamy's secretive nature (held away from first wife's residence, concealed from spouses) rendering prosecution otherwise impossible; here, discovered 2020 by sisters via PSA for GSIS, complaint to NBI 2021, filed 2022—well within period. Erwin failed to prove sisters' actual knowledge pre-2020 despite allegations (Cecile's visit to Elizabeth's family asked hand but no ceremony attendance; Alice's birth cert facilitation not specific marriage knowledge); burden shifted post-prosecution proof as public crime (Minoru Fujiki v. Marinay, 712 Phil. 524, 2013). No evidence first/second wives knew; family prodding does not impute offended party knowledge. People v. Ganguso (591 Phil. 508, 2008) supports defense must substantiate prescription claim. On Elements/Validity of Subsequent Marriage: All four elements proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) Erwin's 1988 marriage to Gemma subsisting; (2) no dissolution/presumptive death; (3) 1999 marriage to Elizabeth; (4) validity via PSA marriage certificate (public document, Section 44 Rule 130, presumed regular, prima facie evidence of license 2552837 issued Jan 29, 1999, ceremony before Mayor Rogelio S. Lago, witnesses), admitted by defense. Erwin's bare allegation of blank contract sans ceremony uncorroborated (even Elizabeth silent), fails to rebut presumption; must present witnesses/officer per evidentiary standard. Pulido v. People (908 Phil. 573, 2021, En Banc) allows void subsequent marriage defense sans judicial nullity but demands concrete proof, not allegations against public documents. RTC/CA credibility findings conclusive (CICL XXX v. People, 899 Phil. 467, 2021); no review of facts under Rule 45. Penalty proper.
Main Doctrine
The crime of bigamy under Article 349, RPC requires proof of four elements: (a) legal marriage of offender; (b) first marriage not dissolved or spouse not presumptively dead; (c) contraction of second/subsequent marriage; (d) second marriage has essential requisites for validity. A marriage certificate, as a public document under Section 44, Rule 130, Rules of Court, enjoys presumption of regularity and prima facie evidence of facts stated therein, including compliance with requisites like license and ceremony, which the accused must rebut with testimonial or documentary evidence, not bare allegations. Even if subsequent marriage is void ab initio, liability for bigamy persists unless nullity is judicially declared or sufficiently proven as a defense per Pulido v. People. Prescription for bigamy (15 years for prision mayor) runs from discovery by offended party, authorities, or agents under Article 91, RPC, rejecting constructive notice from registration as per Sermonia v. Court of Appeals, due to secretive nature rendering prosecution otherwise impossible. Factual findings of trial court on witness credibility, affirmed by CA, are conclusive on Supreme Court in Rule 45 petitions absent exceptional circumstances.