Title Twelve CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS Chapter One.

SIMULATION USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS #ne OF BIRTHS AND

h#&pital e:chan)e& the chil(ren #$ A an( B in the n"r&er1. A%an(#n - lea+in) a chil( in a place ,here #ther pe#ple !a1 $in( it' ca"&in) the chil( t# l#&e it& &tat"&.

Article 34 . Si!"lati#n #$ %irth&' &"%&tit"ti#n #$ chil( $#r an#ther' an( c#nceal!ent #r a%an(#n!ent #$ a le)iti!ate chil( Article 34*. U&"rpati#n #$ ci+il &tat"&

Chapter T,# - ILL./AL MARRIA/.S Article 340. Bi)a!1 Article 323. Marria)e c#ntracte( a)ain&t pr#+i&i#n& #$ la,& Article 324. Pre!at"re !arria)e& Article 325. Per$#r!ance #$ ille)al !arria)e cere!#n1

E+!m,le "$ c"#ce!li#* "r !%!#)"#i#*- A !#ther ,h# lea+e& her chil( at the (##r #$ an #rphana)e. A ph1&ician #r &"r)e#n #r p"%lic #$$icer' ,h# c##perate& in the e:ec"ti#n #$ the&e cri!e&' i& al&# lia%le i$ he act& in +i#lati#n #$ the ("tie& #$ hi& pr#$e&&i#n #r #$$ice.
People vs. Sangalang The Sangalang spouses together with Gloria and Bienvenido were charged of the crime of simulation of birth. The information alleged that a child was furnished by Gloria to the Sangalangs. Accused Bienvenido registered the birth of said child in the local civil registrar by supplying to said office the necessary information required so that a birth certificate would be issued. He named the Sangalangs as the childs parents. A birth certificate was hence issued. nformation did not contain any specific allegation as to what the spouses did! e"cept that they had conspired with Gloria and Bienvenido. H#$%& n the crime of simulation of births! it must be shown that the 'pretending parents( have registered or caused in the registration of the child as their own with the )egistry of Births! or that in doing so they were motivated by a desire to cause the loss of any trace as to the childs true filiation to his pre*udice. n the instant case! S+ found no evidence to sport the finding of T+ that the registration was effected by the Sangalangs. As the evidence would show! it was their daughter Alicia ,not Bienvenido! but still not the spouseswho had a hand in the registration of the child-.

Article 347. Sim l!ti"# "$ %irt&'( ' %'tit ti"# "$ "#e c&il) $"r !#"t&er( !#) c"#ce!lme#t "r !%!#)"#me#t "$ ! le*itim!te c&il). Act& p"ni&ha%le6 4. 5. 3. Si!"lati#n #$ %irth&7 S"%&tit"ti#n #$ #ne chil( $#r an#ther7 C#ncealin) #r a%an(#nin) an1 le)iti!ate chil( ,ith intent t# ca"&e &"ch chil( t# l#&e it& ci+il &tat"&. .le!ent&6 a. the chil( !"&t %e le)iti!ate7 %. the #$$en(er c#nceal& #r a%an(#n& &"ch chil(7 an( c. the #$$en(er ha& the intent t# ca"&e &"ch chil( t# l#&e it& ci+il &tat"&. The #%8ect #$ the cri!e i& the creati#n #$ $al&e' #r the ca"&in) #$ the l#&& #$' ci+il &tat"&.

Article 34.. U' r,!ti"# "$ civil 't!t ' C#!!itte( ,hen a per&#n "&"rp& the ci+il &tat"& #$ an#ther' %1 a&&"!in) the $iliati#n' #r the parental #r c#n8")al ri)ht& #$ an#ther. The ter! ;ci+il &tat"&< incl"(e& #ne<& p"%lic &tati#n' #r the ri)ht&' ("tie&' capacitie& an( incapacitie& ,hich (eter!ine a per&#n t# a )i+en cla&&&. U&"rpati#n #$ pr#$e&&i#n !a1 %e p"ni&he( "n(er thi& article. There !"&t %e intent t# en8#1 the ri)ht& ari&in) $r#! the ci+il &tat"& #$ an#ther' #ther,i&e the ca&e ,ill %e c#n&i(ere( #nl1 a& "&in) a $ictiti#"& na!e' #r a& e&ta$a' (epen(in) #n the $act& #$ the ca&e.

E+!m,le "$ 'im l!ti"# "$ %irt&- a ,#!an preten(& t# %e pre)nant ,hen in $act &he i& n#t' an( #n the (a1 #$ the &"pp#&e( (eli+er1' ta9e& the chil( #$ an#ther a& her #,n. The $act that the chil( ,ill %e %ene$ite( %1 the &i!"lati#n #$ %irth i& n#t a (e$en&e

E+!m,le "$ ' %'tit ti#* "#e c&il) $"r !#"t&er6 A an( B %#th )a+e %irth #n the &a!e (a1. The n"r&e in the

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 152

 The p"rp#&e #$ (e$ra"(in) the #$$en(e( part1 #r hi& heir& ="ali$ie& the cri!e. Article 34/. 0i*!m1 .le!ent&6 4.

Bi)a!1 i& n#t a pri+ate cri!e. It i& an #$$en&e a)ain&t the State' n#t a)ain&t the &ec#n( ,i$e.

A per&#n c#n+icte( #$ %i)a!1 !a1 &till %e pr#&ec"te( $#r c#nc"%ina)e.

People vs. Aragon Aragon contracted a .nd marriage while the first marriage was still subsisting. #ventually the first wife died. He contracted a third marriage. Aragon was charged of bigamy. H#$%& A subsequent marriage contracted by any person during the lifetime of his first spouse is illegal and void from its performance! and no *udicial decree is necessary to establish its invalidity as distinguished from mere annullable marriages. The second marriage is void! hence the third marriage is valid.

2.

3. 4.

O$$en(er ha& %een le)all1 !arrie(7 The !arria)e ha& n#t %een le)all1 (i&&#l+e( #r' in ca&e hi& #r her &p#"&e i& a%&ent' the a%&ent &p#"&e c#"l( n#t 1et %e pre&"!e( (ea( %1 !ean& #$ a 8"()!ent ren(ere( in a pr#per pr#cee(in)&' acc#r(in) t# the Ci+il C#(e7 He c#ntract& a &ec#n( #r &"%&e="ent !arria)e7 The &ec#n( #r &"%&e="ent !arria)e ha& all the e&&ential re="i&ite& $#r +ali(it1.

N"llit1 #$ the $ir&t !arria)e i& n#t a (e$en&e in a %i)a!1 char)e. There !"&t %e a 8"(icial (eclarati#n #$ the n"llit1 #$ a pre+i#"& !arria)e %e$#re c#ntractin) the &ec#n( !arria)e. Ca"&e& ,hich !a1 pr#("ce the le)al (i&&#l"ti#n #$ the $ir&t !arria)e6 o Death #$ #ne #$ the c#ntractin) partie& o >"(icial (eclarati#n ann"llin) a +#i( !arria)e o >"(icial (eclarati#n ann"llin) a +#i(a%le !arria)e De$en&e ha& the %"r(en #$ pr##$ #$ (i&&#l"ti#n #$ $ir&t !arria)e. F#r the pre&ent &p#"&e t# c#ntract a &"%&e="ent !arria)e' an a%&ent &p#"&e i& pre&"!e( (ea( i$ he ha& %een a%&ent $#r $#"r c#n&ec"ti+e 1ear& an( the &p#"&e pre&ent ha( a ,ell?$#"n(e( %elie$ that he i& alrea(1 (ea(. In ca&e #$ (i&appearance ,here there i& (an)er #$ (eath' an a%&ence #$ #nl1 t,# 1ear& ,ill %e &"$$icient. H#,e+er' a (eclarati#n #$ pre&"!pti+e (eath &h#"l( $ir&t %e #%taine( $r#! the c#"rt&. The &ec#n( !arria)e !"&t ha+e all the re="i&ite& $#r +ali(it1 ,ere it n#t $#r the e:i&tence #$ the $ir&t !arria)e.

Article 323. M!rri!*e c"#tr!cte) !*!i#'t ,r"vi'i"#' "$ l!w' .le!ent&6 4. 5. O$$en(er c#ntracte( !arria)e7 He 9ne, at the ti!e that ? a. The re="ire!ent& #$ the la, ,ere n#t c#!plie( ,ith7 #r %. The !arria)e ,a& in (i&re)ar( #$ a le)al i!pe(i!ent.

I$ either #$ the c#ntractin) partie& #%tain& the c#n&ent #$ the #ther %1 !ean& #$ +i#lence' inti!i(ati#n #r $ra"(' the !a:i!"! peri#( #$ the penalt1 &hall %e i!p#&e(. The #$$en(er !"&t n#t %e )"ilt1 #$ %i)a!1' t# %e p"ni&ha%le "n(er thi& article.
Lucio Morigo v People (2002) /A+TS& $ucio 0origo and $ucia Barrete were boardmates. After school year 1233435 they lost contact with each other. n 1256! $ucio 0origo was surprised to receive a card from $ucia Barrete from Singapore. The former replied and after an e"change of letters! they became sweethearts. n 1257! $ucia returned to the 8hilippines but left again for +anada to wor9 there. :hile in +anada! they maintained constant communication. n 122;! $ucia came bac9 to the 8hilippines and proposed to $ucio to *oin her in +anada. Both agreed to get married. <n September 5! 122;! $ucia reported bac9 to her wor9 in +anada leaving appellant $ucio behind. <n August 12! 1221! $ucia filed with the <ntario +ourt for divorce which was granted on =anuary 13! 122.. <n <ctober 6! 122.! appellant $ucio 0origo married 0aria =ececha $umbago. <n September .1! 122>! accused filed a complaint for *udicial declaration of nullity of marriage

The &ec#n( &p#"&e i& n#t nece&&aril1 lia%le $#r the %i)a!1. I$ the &ec#n( h"&%an( #r ,i$e 9ne, #$ the $ir&t !arria)e' he@&he i& an acc#!plice in the cri!e #$ %i)a!1. The ,itne&& ,h# $al&el1 +#"che( $#r the capacit1 #$ either #$ the c#ntractin) partie& i& al&# an acc#!plice.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 153

in the )T+. <n <ctober 12! 122>! $ucio was charged with Bigamy and found guilty thereon. H#$%& The primordial issue should be whether or not petitioner committed bigamy and if so! whether his defense of good faith is valid. n Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis! we laid down the elements of bigamy thus& ,1married? ,.the first marriage has not been legally dissolved! or in case his or her spouse is absent! the absent spouse has not been *udicially declared presumptively dead? ,>marriage? and he contracts a subsequent the offender has been legally

,6the subsequent marriage would have been valid had it not been for the e"istence of the first. a%cTH# Applying the foregoing test to the instant case! we note that the trial court found that there was no actual marriage ceremony performed between $ucio and $ucia by a solemni@ing officer. nstead! what transpired was a mere signing of the marriage contract by the two! without the presence of a solemni@ing officer. The first element of bigamy as a crime requires that the accused must have been legally married. But in this case! legally spea9ing! the petitioner was never married to $ucia Barrete. Thus! there is no first marriage to spea9 of. Ander the principle of retroactivity of a marriage being declared void ab initio! the two were never married 'from the beginning.( The contract of marriage is null? it bears no legal effect. Ta9ing this argument to its logical conclusion! for legal purposes! petitioner was not married to $ucia at the time he contracted the marriage with 0aria =ececha. The e"istence and the validity of the first marriage being an essential element of the crime of bigamy! it is but logical that a conviction for said offense cannot be sustained where there is no first marriage to spea9 of. The petitioner! must! perforce be acquitted of the instant charge. A una!o v. People (200") /A+TS& September 15! 1273 Salvador married Barcisa ArceCo at the 0anila +ity Hall before )ev. 8edro Tiangco. n 1255 Barcisa left for =apan to wor9 but returned to the 8hilippines in 122.! Barcisa found Salvador in Due@on +ity cohabiting with /e +ora@on 8lato. She also discovered that on =anuary 1;! 1252! Salvador contracted a second marriage with a certain Eenaida BiCas. An annulment case was filed by Salvador against Barcisa. A case for bigamy was filed by Barcisa against Salvador and Eenaida. Salvador admitted that he first married Eenaida on %ecember .6! 12FF before a municipal trial court *udge in +oncepcion! loilo and has four children with her prior to their separation in 1277. t appeared however that there was no evidence of their 12FF marriage so he and Eenaida remarried on =anuary 1;! 1252! upon the request of their son for the purpose of complying with the requirements for his commission in the military. The trial court convicted petitioner Salvador Abunado of bigamy.

H#$%& Abunado claims that his petition for annulmentGdeclaration of nullity of marriage was a pre*udicial question! hence! the proceedings in the bigamy case should have been suspended during the pendency of the annulment case. 8etitioner! in fact! eventually obtained a *udicial declaration of nullity of his marriage to Barcisa on <ctober .2! 1222. 1F The subsequent *udicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage was immaterial because prior to the declaration of nullity! the crime had already been consummated. 0oreover! petitionerHs assertion would only delay the prosecution of bigamy cases considering that an accused could simply file a petition to declare his previous marriage void and invo9e the pendency of that action as a pre*udicial question in the criminal case. :e cannot allow that. 13 The outcome of the civil case for annulment of petitionerHs marriage to Barcisa had no bearing upon the determination of petitionerHs innocence or guilt in the criminal case for bigamy! because all that is required for the charge of bigamy to prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at the time the second marriage is contracted. Thus! under the law! a marriage! even one which is void or voidable! shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a *udicial proceeding. n this case! even if petitioner eventually obtained a declaration that his first marriage was void ab initio! the point is! both the first and the second marriage were subsisting before the first marriage was annulled.

#iego v. Cas$illo (200") /A+TS& <n =anuary 2! 127F! $ucena #scoto contracted marriage with =orge de 8erio! =r. The couple were both /ilipinos. n the marriage contract! the accused used and adopted the name +rescencia #scoto! with a civil status of single. n a document dated /ebruary 1F! 1235! denominated as a '%ecree of %ivorce( purportedly issued by an American court! +rescencia de 8erio was granted a %ivorce from =orge. Subsequently! +rescencia #scoto contracted marriage with 0anuel 8. %iego. The marriage contract shows that this time! the accused used and adopted the name $ucena #scoto! again! with a civil status of single. $ater! a case for bigamy was filed against her by her brother in law. After trial of the criminal case for bigamy! =udge +astillo promulgated a decision stating that the main basis for the acquittal was good faith on the part of the accused. =udge +astillo gave credence to the defense of the accused that she acted without any malicious intent. The evidence he averred gave accused $ucena #scoto sufficient grounds to believe that her previous marriage had been validly dissolved by the divorce decree and that she was legally free to contract the second marriage with 0anuel 8. %iego. H#$%& A careful study of the disputed decision reveals that respondent =udge had been less than circumspect in his study of the law and *urisprudence applicable to the bigamy case. n his comment! respondent =udge stated& 'That the accused married 0anuel 8. %iego in the honest belief that she was free to do so by virtue of the decree of divorce is a mista9e of fact.(

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 15"

This +ourt! in 8eople v. Bitdu! carefully distinguished between a mista9e of fact! which could be a basis for the defense of good faith in a bigamy case! from a mista9e of law! which does not e"cuse a person! even a lay person! from liability. Bitdu held that even if the accused! who had obtained a divorce under the 0ohammedan custom! honestly believed that in contracting her second marriage she was not committing any violation of the law! and that she had no criminal intent! the same does not *ustify her act. This +ourt further stated therein that with respect to the contention that the accused acted in good faith in contracting the second marriage! believing that she had been validly divorced from her first husband! it is sufficient to say that everyone is presumed to 9now the law! and the fact that one does not 9now that his act constitutes a violation of the law does not e"empt him from the consequences thereof. 0oreover! squarely applicable to the criminal case for bigamy! is 8eople v. Schnec9enburger! where it was held that the accused who secured a foreign divorce! and later remarried in the 8hilippines! in the belief that the foreign divorce was valid! is liable for bigamy.

Article 324. Prem!t re m!rri!*e' Per&#n& lia%le6 4. A ,i(#, ,h# i& !arrie( ,ithin 334 (a1& $r#! the (ate #$ the (eath #$ her h"&%an(' #r %e$#re ha+in) (eli+ere( i$ &he i& pre)nant at the ti!e #$ hi& (eath7 5. A ,#!an ,h#' her !arria)e ha+in) %een ann"lle( #r (i&&#l+e(' !arrie( %e$#re her (eli+er1 #r %e$#re the e:pirati#n #$ the peri#( #$ 334 (a1& a$ter the (ate #$ the le)al &eparati#n.

Rea&#n %ehin( the la,6 t# pre+ent (#"%t$"l paternit1' %eca"&e the ,#!an !i)ht ha+e c#ncei+e( an( %ec#!e pre)nant %1 her pre+i#"& h"&%an(. The peri#( #$ 334 (a1& !a1 %e (i&re)ar(e( i$ the $ir&t h"&%an( ,a& i!p#tent #r &terile. Article 325. Per$"rm!#ce m!rri!*e cerem"#1 "$ ille*!l

Prie&t& #r !ini&ter& #$ an1 reli)i#"& (en#!inati#n #r &ect' #r ci+il a"th#ritie& ,h# &hall per$#r! #r a"th#riAe an1 ille)al !arria)e cere!#n1 The #$$en(er !"&t %e a"th#riAe( t# &#le!niAe !arria)e&. I$ the acc"&e( i& n#t a"th#riAe(' he i& lia%le "n(er article 4 B"&"rpati#n #$ a"th#rit1 #r #$$icial $"ncti#n&C O$$en(er i& p"ni&he( "n(er the !arria)e la, Bthere i& &"ch a la,DEDC.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 155