The Supreme Court ruled that a person cannot be convicted of bigamy if their first marriage was void ab initio (from the beginning) because, legally speaking, there was no first marriage. This decision clarifies that the existence of a valid first marriage is essential for a bigamy conviction. It highlights the importance of ensuring that a marriage is legally valid before entering into another one, as the absence of a valid first marriage negates the charge of bigamy.

Love, Law, and Loopholes: Did a Faulty First Wedding Save a Second Marriage?

The case of Lucio Morigo y Cacho brings to light a complex intersection of marital laws and criminal liability. Morigo was charged with bigamy for marrying Maria Jececha Lumbago while allegedly still married to Lucia Barrete. His defense hinged on two critical points: a Canadian divorce decree from his marriage to Lucia and, more significantly, a later declaration by a Philippine court that his marriage to Lucia was void ab initio. This declaration stated that no actual marriage ceremony had taken place, rendering the union invalid from its inception. The central legal question is whether a subsequent declaration of nullity of the first marriage can retroactively negate the elements of bigamy.

The prosecution argued that Morigo contracted a second marriage before the first was legally dissolved, fulfilling the elements of bigamy as defined under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, which states:

ART. 349. Bigamy. – The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings.

The trial court initially convicted Morigo, relying on the principle that parties to a marriage must secure a judicial declaration of nullity before remarrying, even if they believe the marriage is void. This view was supported by the ruling in Domingo v. Court of Appeals, which emphasized the necessity of a judicial pronouncement before assuming a marriage’s invalidity.

However, the Supreme Court took a different stance, focusing on the fundamental element of a valid first marriage. The court emphasized that for bigamy to exist, the accused must have been legally married at the time of the second marriage. The Court analyzed the elements of bigamy:

1. The offender has been legally married.
2. The first marriage has not been legally dissolved, or in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse has not been judicially declared presumptively dead.
3. He contracts a subsequent marriage.
4. The subsequent marriage would have been valid had it not been for the existence of the first.

The Court stated that because the Regional Trial Court declared Lucio and Lucia’s marriage void ab initio, it was as if the marriage never existed. As such, there was no first marriage in the eyes of the law. This means that one of the essential elements of the crime of bigamy was missing.

A crucial aspect of the Supreme Court’s decision was the retroactivity of the declaration of nullity. The Court highlighted that once a marriage is declared void ab initio, the declaration retroacts to the date of the marriage, effectively erasing the legal existence of the marital bond from the beginning. The court also cited Articles 3 and 4 of the Family Code, which address the formal requisites of marriage and the effect of their absence.

The Supreme Court contrasted the present case with Mercado v. Tan, where a judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage was obtained after the second marriage. In Mercado, the Court held that a judicial declaration is necessary before contracting a subsequent marriage, even if the earlier union is characterized as void. However, the Supreme Court distinguished Mercado from Morigo’s case by highlighting that in Mercado, a marriage ceremony actually occurred, lending a semblance of validity to the first marriage.

In Morigo’s case, no marriage ceremony was performed. The parties merely signed a marriage contract, which, according to the Court, did not constitute an ostensibly valid marriage. In the absence of a valid marriage ceremony performed by an authorized solemnizing officer, the Supreme Court found that the first element of bigamy—a legally valid first marriage—was not met. The absence of this element led to Morigo’s acquittal.

The Court further emphasized that it is mandated to liberally construe a penal statute in favor of the accused. Considering the circumstances, it held that Morigo had not committed bigamy. The Court found that the defense of good faith or lack of criminal intent was moot and academic, given the absence of a valid first marriage.

The Supreme Court underscored the importance of strictly adhering to the elements of the crime of bigamy and ensuring that each element is proven beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the absence of a valid first marriage was a critical factor in overturning the lower courts’ decisions and acquitting the accused.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a person could be convicted of bigamy when their first marriage was later declared void ab initio due to the absence of a valid marriage ceremony.
What is bigamy under Philippine law?	Bigamy, as defined in Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, is the act of contracting a second marriage before the first marriage has been legally dissolved or the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by a court judgment.
What does “void ab initio” mean?	“Void ab initio” means void from the beginning. In the context of marriage, it means the marriage was invalid from its inception and had no legal effect.
Why was Morigo acquitted of bigamy?	Morigo was acquitted because the Supreme Court ruled that his first marriage to Lucia was void ab initio. Without a valid first marriage, one of the essential elements of bigamy was missing.
What is the significance of a judicial declaration of nullity?	A judicial declaration of nullity is a court judgment stating that a marriage is void. While generally necessary before remarrying, in this case, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary since no valid marriage ceremony ever took place.
How did the Supreme Court distinguish this case from Mercado v. Tan?	In Mercado v. Tan, a marriage ceremony occurred in the first marriage, giving it a semblance of validity. In Morigo’s case, no marriage ceremony took place, rendering the first marriage invalid on its face.
What was the effect of the Canadian divorce decree in this case?	The Canadian divorce decree was not given weight because Philippine law does not automatically recognize foreign divorce decrees, especially when one of the parties is a Filipino citizen.
What is the main takeaway from this Supreme Court decision?	The main takeaway is that a conviction for bigamy requires a valid first marriage. If the first marriage is declared void ab initio, it is as if no marriage ever existed, negating the possibility of a bigamy charge.

This case serves as a reminder of the complexities of marital law and the importance of ensuring the validity of marriages. The Supreme Court’s decision in Morigo v. People provides a crucial clarification on the elements of bigamy, emphasizing the necessity of a valid first marriage for a conviction.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Lucio Morigo y Cacho v. People, G.R. No. 145226, February 06, 2004