The Supreme Court in Antone v. Beronilla clarified that a subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of a prior marriage does not retroactively absolve a person from the crime of bigamy if the second marriage was contracted before the judicial declaration. This decision underscores the importance of obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity before entering into a subsequent marriage. It serves as a stern warning against contracting subsequent marriages without proper legal dissolution of prior unions, reinforcing the sanctity of marriage under Philippine law.

Second Chances or Second Crimes: When Does a Nullified Marriage Excuse Bigamy?

The case arose from an Affidavit-Complaint filed by Myrna P. Antone against Leo R. Beronilla for bigamy. Antone alleged that Beronilla contracted a second marriage with Cecile Maguillo in 1991 while his marriage with Antone in 1978 was still subsisting. Beronilla moved to quash the Information, arguing that his marriage with Antone had been declared null and void by the Regional Trial Court of Naval, Biliran, in April 2007, with the decision becoming final in May 2007 and registered in June 2007. He contended that since the first marriage was void ab initio, there was no valid first marriage to speak of, thereby negating an essential element of bigamy.

The prosecution countered that bigamy had already been committed when Beronilla contracted the second marriage in 1991, as the first marriage was still valid at that time. The Pasay City trial court, however, granted Beronilla’s motion to quash, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Morigo v. People, which suggested that a marriage declared void ab initio has retroactive effect, negating the first marriage. The prosecution moved for reconsideration, arguing that Morigo was not applicable and invoking Mercado v. Tan, which requires a judicial declaration of nullity before remarriage.

The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration, stating that Morigo superseded Mercado. The Court of Appeals (CA) later dismissed Antone’s petition for certiorari, citing defects in the verification, the requirement for the Solicitor General to file the petition, and the risk of double jeopardy. Antone then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

The Supreme Court addressed procedural issues, including the defective verification and Antone’s legal standing. While acknowledging the defects, the Court emphasized that procedural rules can be relaxed to serve the ends of justice. It noted that although the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) typically represents the government in appeals, the Court has previously given due course to actions not properly represented by the OSG, particularly when the challenged order affects the interest of the State or the People of the Philippines.

The Court also dismissed the CA’s finding of double jeopardy. It reiterated that for jeopardy to attach, there must be a sufficient complaint or information, a court of competent jurisdiction, a valid arraignment or plea, and an acquittal, conviction, or dismissal without the accused’s express consent. In this case, Beronilla had not yet entered a plea when he moved to quash the Information, and the dismissal was at his instance, not without his consent.

Turning to the substantive issue, the Supreme Court examined whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion to quash. It reiterated that a motion to quash hypothetically admits the facts alleged in the Information, and the court cannot consider allegations contrary to those appearing on its face. The Court emphasized that the Information sufficiently alleged all the elements of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code:

(1) that the offender has been legally married;
(2) that the first marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code;
(3) that he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and
(4) that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.

The Court found that the trial court erred in considering documents showing the later declaration of nullity of the first marriage, as these were matters of defense that should be raised during trial, not in a motion to quash. Furthermore, the Court distinguished the case from People v. Mendoza and Morigo, which had been relied upon by Beronilla. It clarified that these cases do not negate the requirement under Article 40 of the Family Code for a judicial declaration of nullity of a prior marriage before contracting a subsequent marriage.

The Court emphasized that Mercado v. Tan established that under the Family Code, a subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage is immaterial in a bigamy case because the crime had already been consummated when the second marriage was contracted without a prior judicial declaration. The Court cited Tenebro v. Court of Appeals, stating that a marriage, though void ab initio, may still produce legal consequences, including incurring criminal liability for bigamy. The Supreme Court also cited Re: Complaint of Mrs. Corazon S. Salvador against Spouses Noel and Amelia Serafico, where it was held that “a judicial declaration of nullity is required before a valid subsequent marriage can be contracted; or else, what transpires is a bigamous marriage, reprehensible and immoral.”

The Court explicitly stated the application of Article 40 of the Family Code. The essence of Article 40 is that despite a first marriage being declared void ab initio, the person is not free to remarry without first obtaining a judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage. The court in Mercado vs Tan stated that Article 40 of the Family Code is a new provision expressly requiring a judicial declaration of nullity of a prior marriage and examining a long line of cases.

Therefore, the Supreme Court found that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in quashing the Information for Bigamy. The trial court disregarded the rule that a motion to quash is a hypothetical admission of the facts stated in the information and considered evidence to prove a fact not alleged in the Information.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the rulings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, affirming the importance of adhering to legal procedures and underscoring the necessity of obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity before contracting a subsequent marriage.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of a first marriage could retroactively absolve a person from the crime of bigamy, when the second marriage was contracted before the declaration of nullity. The Supreme Court ruled it does not.
What is bigamy under Philippine law?	Bigamy, as defined under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, is committed when a person contracts a second or subsequent marriage before the first marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by court order.
What is a motion to quash?	A motion to quash is a legal maneuver by which an accused assails the validity of a criminal complaint or Information filed against him or her. It is based on the claim that the charge is insufficient in law or that there are defects apparent on the face of the Information.
What does it mean to hypothetically admit the facts in the Information?	Hypothetically admitting the facts in the Information means that for the purpose of resolving a motion to quash, the court assumes the truth of the allegations in the Information. This assumption does not allow the court to consider contradictory evidence at this stage.
What is the significance of Article 40 of the Family Code?	Article 40 of the Family Code requires a judicial declaration of nullity of a prior marriage before a party can contract a valid subsequent marriage. This article clarifies that even if a marriage is void ab initio, a court declaration is still necessary to avoid liability for bigamy.
What did the Supreme Court say about the cases of Morigo v. People and Mercado v. Tan?	The Supreme Court clarified that Morigo v. People and Mercado v. Tan are distinct cases. Mercado requires a judicial declaration of nullity before remarriage, while Morigo involved a situation where no valid marriage ceremony occurred, making a judicial declaration unnecessary.
What happens when a trial court commits grave abuse of discretion?	When a trial court commits grave abuse of discretion, its decisions or orders can be overturned by higher courts, such as the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. Grave abuse of discretion implies an arbitrary or despotic exercise of power, or a whimsical, capricious, or patently illegal manner of judgment.
What is the implication of this ruling for those seeking to remarry?	This ruling implies that individuals must obtain a judicial declaration of nullity or legal dissolution of their prior marriage before entering into a subsequent marriage. Failure to do so can result in prosecution for bigamy, regardless of whether the first marriage is later declared void ab initio.

The Antone v. Beronilla case serves as a crucial reminder of the legal requirements surrounding marriage and remarriage in the Philippines. The decision reaffirms the necessity of obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity before contracting a subsequent marriage to avoid potential criminal liability for bigamy. The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to legal processes and seeking proper legal advice when dealing with marital issues.

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: MYRNA P. ANTONE VS. LEO R. BERONILLA, G.R. No. 183824, December 08, 2010