376

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Morigo vs. People
*

G.R.No.145226.February6,2004.

LUCIO MORIGO y CACHO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF

THEPHILIPPINES,respondent.
Criminal Law; Bigamy; Elements; In MarbellaBobis vs. Bobis,
the elements of bigamy were laid down.In MarbellaBobis v.
Bobis we laid down the elements of bigamy thus: (1) the offender
hasbeenlegallymarried;(2)thefirstmarriagehasnotbeenlegally
dissolved, or in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse
has not been judicially declared presumptively dead; (3) he
contractsasubsequentmarriage;and(4)thesubsequentmarriage
wouldhavebeenvalidhaditnotbeenfortheexistenceofthefirst.
Same; Same; Same; Declaration of the first marriage as void ab
initio retroacts to the date of the celebration of the first
marriage.There was no marriage to begin with; and that such
declaration of nullity retroacts to the date of the first marriage. In
otherwords,forallintentsandpurposes,reckonedfromthedateof
thedeclarationofthefirstmarriageasvoidab initiotothedateof
the celebration of the first marriage, the accused was, under the
eyesofthelaw,nevermarried.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionand
resolutionoftheCourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Jordan M. Pizarras and Joselito T. Lopez for
petitioner.
The Solicitor GeneralforthePeople.
QUISUMBING,J.:
This petition
for review on certiorari seeks to reverse the
1
decision datedOctober21,1999oftheCourtofAppealsin
2
CAG.R.CRNo.20700,whichaffirmedthejudgment dated

August5,1996oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofBohol,
Branch4,inCriminalCaseNo.8688.Thetrialcourtfound
herein petitioner Lucio Morigo y Cacho guilty beyond
reasonabledoubtofbigamyandsen
_______________
* SECONDDIVISION.
1 Rollo, pp. 3844. Penned by Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria

and concurred in by Associate Justices Marina L. Buzon and Edgardo

P.Cruz.
2Records,pp.114119.

377

VOL.422,FEBRUARY6,2004

377

Morigo vs. People

tenced him to a prison term of seven (7) months of prision
correccionalasminimumtosix(6)yearsandone(1)dayof
prision mayorasmaximum.Alsoassailedinthispetitionis
3
theresolution of the appellate court, dated September 25,
2000,denyingMorigosmotionforreconsideration.
Thefactsofthiscase,asfoundbythecourta quo,areas
follows:
Appellant Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates at the
houseofCatalinaTortoratTagbilaranCity,ProvinceofBohol,fora
periodoffour(4)years(from19741978).
After school year 197778, Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete lost
contactwitheachother.
In1984,LucioMorigowassurprisedtoreceiveacardfromLucia
BarretefromSingapore.Theformerrepliedandafteranexchange
ofletters,theybecamesweethearts.
In 1986, Lucia returned to the Philippines but left again for
Canadatoworkthere.WhileinCanada,theymaintainedconstant
communication.
In 1990, Lucia came back to the Philippines and proposed to
petitionappellanttojoinherinCanada.Bothagreedtogetmarried,
thus they were married on August 30, 1990 at the Iglesia de
Filipina NacionalatCatagdaan,Pilar,Bohol.
On September 8, 1990, Lucia reported back to her work in
CanadaleavingappellantLuciobehind.
OnAugust19,1991,LuciafiledwiththeOntarioCourt(General
Division)apetitionfordivorceagainstappellantwhichwasgranted

by the court on January 17, 1992 and to take effect on February

17,1992.
On October 4, 1992, appellant Lucio Morigo married Maria
4
Jececha Lumbago at the Virgen sa Barangay Parish, Tagbilaran
City,Bohol.
On September 21, 1993, accused filed a complaint for judicial
declaration of nullity of marriage in the Regional Trial Court of
Bohol, docketed as Civil Case No. 6020. The complaint seek (sic)
amongothers,thedeclarationofnullityofaccusedsmarriagewith
Lucia, on the ground that no marriage ceremony actually took
place.
_______________
3 Rollo, pp. 4658. Per Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz, with Associate

Justices Cancio C. Garcia and Marina L. Buzon, concurring and Eugenio S.

LabitoriaandBernardoP.Abesamis,dissenting.
4HercorrectnameisMariaJecechaLimbago(Italicsforemphasis).SeeExh.

B,thecopyoftheirmarriagecontract.Records,p.10.

378

378

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Morigo vs. People

OnOctober19,1993,appellantwaschargedwithBigamyinan
5
Information filedbytheCityProsecutorofTagbilaran[City],with
6
theRegionalTrialCourtofBohol.

Thepetitionermovedforsuspensionofthearraignmenton
thegroundthatthecivilcaseforjudicialnullificationofhis
marriage with Lucia posed a prejudicial question in the
bigamy case. His motion was granted, but subsequently
denieduponmotionforreconsiderationbytheprosecution.
Whenarraignedinthebigamycase,whichwasdocketedas
Criminal Case No. 8688, herein petitioner pleaded not
guiltytothecharge.Trialthereafterensued.
On August 5, 1996, the RTC of Bohol handed down its
judgmentinCriminalCaseNo.8688,asfollows:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Court finds
accused Lucio Morigo y Cacho guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Bigamy and sentences him to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment ranging from Seven (7) Months of Prision
Correccional as minimum to Six (6) Years and One (1) Day of
Prision Mayorasmaximum.

SOORDERED.

In convicting herein petitioner, the trial court discounted

petitioners claim that his first marriage to Lucia was null8
andvoidab initio.FollowingDomingo v. Court of Appeals,
thetrialcourtruledthatwantofavalidmarriageceremony
is not a defense in a charge of bigamy. The parties to a
marriage should not be allowed to assume that their
marriageisvoidevenifsuchbethefactbutmust
_______________
5 The accusatory portion of the charge sheet found in Records, p. 1,

reads:
That, on or about the 4th day of October, 1992, in the City of Tagbilaran,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above
namedaccusedbeingpreviouslyunitedinlawfulmarriagewithLuciaBarrete
on August 23, 1990 and without the said marriage having been legally
dissolved, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously contract a
secondmarriagewithMariaJecechaLimbagotothedamageandprejudiceof
LuciaBarreteintheamounttobeprovedduringtrial.
Acts committed contrary to the provisions of Article 349 of the Revised
PenalCode.
6Rollo,pp.3840.
7Records,p.119.
8G.R.No.104818,17September1993,226SCRA572.

379

VOL.422,FEBRUARY6,2004

379

Morigo vs. People

first secure a judicial declaration of the nullity of their
marriagebeforetheycanbeallowedtomarryagain.
AnenttheCanadiandivorceobtainedbyLucia,thetrial
9
courtcitedRamirez v. Gmur, whichheldthatthecourtofa
countryinwhichneitherofthespousesisdomiciledandin
whichoneorbothspousesmayresortmerelyforthepurpose
ofobtainingadivorce,hasnojurisdictiontodeterminethe
matrimonialstatusoftheparties.Assuch,adivorcegranted
by said court is not entitled to recognition anywhere.
Debunking Lucios defense of good faith in contracting the
second marriage,
the trial court stressed that following
10
People v. Bitdu, everyoneispresumedtoknowthelaw,and

the fact that one does not know that his act constitutes a
violation of the law does not exempt him from the
consequencesthereof.
Seasonably,petitionerfiledanappealwiththeCourtof
Appeals,docketedasCAG.R.CRNo.20700.
Meanwhile, on October 23, 1997, or while CAG.R. CR
No.20700waspendingbeforetheappellatecourt,thetrial
courtrenderedadecisioninCivilCaseNo.6020declaring
themarriagebetweenLucioandLuciavoidab initiosince
no marriage ceremony actually took place. No appeal was
taken from this decision, which then became final and
executory.
OnOctober21,1999,theappellatecourtdecidedCAG.R.
CRNo.20700asfollows:
WHEREFORE,findingnoerrorintheappealeddecision,thesame
isherebyAFFIRMEDin toto.
11
SOORDERED.

In affirming the assailed judgment of conviction, the

appellatecourtstressedthatthesubsequentdeclarationof
nullityofLuciosmarriagetoLuciainCivilCaseNo.6020
couldnotacquitLucio.Thereasonisthatwhatissoughtto
12
bepunishedbyArticle349 of
_______________
942Phil.855,863(1918).
1058Phil.817(1933).
11Rollo,p.43.
12ART.349.Bigamy.Thepenaltyofprision

mayorshallbeimposed

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
judgmentrenderedintheproperproceedings.
380

380

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Morigo vs. People

the Revised Penal Code is the act of contracting a second

marriage before the first marriage had been dissolved.
Hence,theCAheld,thefactthatthefirstmarriagewasvoid
fromthebeginningisnotavaliddefenseinabigamycase.

The Court of Appeals also pointed out that the divorce

decreeobtainedbyLuciafromtheCanadiancourtcouldnot
beaccordedvalidityinthePhilippines,pursuanttoArticle
13
15 oftheCivilCodeandgiventhefactthatitiscontraryto
14
public policy in this jurisdiction. Under Article 17 of the
CivilCode,adeclarationofpublicpolicycannotberendered
ineffectual by a judgment promulgated in a foreign
jurisdiction.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the appellate
courtsdecision,contendingthatthedoctrineinMendiola
v.
15
People, allows mistake upon a difficult question of law
(suchastheeffectofaforeigndivorcedecree)tobeabasis
forgoodfaith.
On September 25, 2000,
the appellate court denied the
16
motionforlackofmerit. However,thedenialwasbyasplit
vote.Theponenteoftheappellatecourtsoriginaldecisionin
CAG.R.CRNo.20700,JusticeEugenioS.Labitoria,joined
in the opinion prepared by Justice Bernardo P. Abesamis.
Thedissentobservedthatasthefirstmarriagewasvalidly
declaredvoidab initio,thentherewasnofirstmarriageto
speakof.Sincethedateofthenullityretroactstothedateof
the first marriage and since herein petitioner was, in the
eyes of the law, never married, he cannot be convicted
beyondreasonabledoubtofbigamy.
_______________
13Art.15.Lawsrelatingtofamilyrightsandduties,ortothestatus,

condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the
Philippines,eventhoughlivingabroad.
14 Art. 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other

public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in

whichtheyareexecuted.
When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or
consularofficialsoftheRepublicofthePhilippinesinaforeigncountry,
thesolemnitiesestablishedbyPhilippinelawsshallbeobservedintheir
execution.
Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and
those which have for their object public order, public policy and good
customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments
promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a
foreigncountry.
15G.R.Nos.8998384,6March1992,207SCRA85.
16Rollo,p.51.

381

VOL.422,FEBRUARY6,2004

381

Morigo vs. People

The present petition raises the following issues for our
resolution:
A.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
FAILINGTOAPPLYTHERULETHATINCRIMESPENALIZED
UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE, CRIMINAL INTENT IS
AN INDISPENSABLE REQUISITE. COROLLARILY, WHETHER
OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO
APPRECIATE [THE] PETITIONERS LACK OF CRIMINAL
INTENTWHENHECONTRACTEDTHESECONDMARRIAGE.
B.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
HOLDING THAT THE RULING IN PEOPLE VS. BITDU (58
PHIL.817)ISAPPLICABLETOTHECASEATBAR.
C.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
FAILING TO APPLY THE RULE THAT EACH AND EVERY
CIRCUMSTANCE FAVORING THE INNOCENCE OF THE
17
ACCUSEDMUSTBETAKENINTOACCOUNT.

Toourmind,theprimordialissueshouldbewhetherornot
petitionercommittedbigamyandifso,whetherhisdefense
ofgoodfaithisvalid.
Thepetitionersubmitsthatheshouldnotbefaultedfor
relyingingoodfaithuponthedivorcedecreeoftheOntario
court.Hehighlightsthefactthathecontractedthesecond
marriage openly and publicly, which a person intent upon
committing bigamy would not be doing. The petitioner
furtherarguesthathislackofcriminalintentismaterialto
a conviction or acquittal in the instant case. The crime of
bigamy,justlikeotherfeloniespunishedundertheRevised
PenalCode,ismala in se,andhence,goodfaithandlackof
criminal intent are allowed as a complete defense. He
stresses that there is a difference between the intent to
commit the crime and the intent to perpetrate the act.
Hence, it does not necessarily follow that his intention to
contract a second marriage is tantamount to an intent to
commitbigamy.

_______________
17Id.,atpp.2021.

382

382

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Morigo vs. People

Fortherespondent,theOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG)
submitsthatgoodfaithintheinstantcaseisaconvenient
but flimsy excuse. The Solicitor18General relies upon our
rulinginMarbellaBobis v. Bobis, whichheldthatbigamy
can be successfully prosecuted provided
all the elements
19
concur,stressingthatunderArticle40 oftheFamilyCode,
ajudicialdeclarationofnullityisamustbeforeapartymay
remarry. Whether or not the petitioner was aware of said
Article40isofnoaccountaseveryoneispresumedtoknow
thelaw.TheOSGcountersthatpetitionerscontentionthat
hewasingoodfaithbecausehereliedonthedivorcedecree
oftheOntariocourtisnegatedbyhisactoffilingCivilCase
No. 6020, seeking a judicial declaration of nullity of his
marriagetoLucia.
Beforewedelveintopetitionersdefenseofgoodfaithand
lackofcriminalintent,wemustfirstdeterminewhetherall
the elements of bigamy
are present in this case. In
20
MarbellaBobis v. Bobis we laid down the elements of
bigamythus:
(1) theoffenderhasbeenlegallymarried;
(2) thefirstmarriagehasnotbeenlegallydissolved,or
incasehisorherspouseisabsent,theabsentspouse
hasnotbeenjudiciallydeclaredpresumptivelydead;
(3) hecontractsasubsequentmarriage;and
(4) thesubsequentmarriagewouldhavebeenvalidhad
itnotbeenfortheexistenceofthefirst.
Applyingtheforegoingtesttotheinstantcase,wenotethat
duringthependencyofCAG.R.CRNo.20700,theRTCof
BoholBranch1,handeddownthefollowingdecisioninCivil
CaseNo.6020,towit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
decreeingtheannulmentofthemarriageenteredintobypetitioner
LucioMorigoandLuciaBarreteonAugust23,1990inPilar,Bohol

and further directing the Local Civil Registrar of Pilar, Bohol to

effectthecancellationofthemarriagecontract.
_______________
18G.R.No.138509,31July2000,336SCRA747,752753.
19Art.40.The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for

purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such

previousmarriagevoid.
20Supra.

383

VOL.422,FEBRUARY6,2004

383

Morigo vs. People

21

SOORDERED.

The trial court found that there was no actual marriage

ceremony performed between Lucio and Lucia by a
solemnizing officer. Instead, what transpired was a mere
signing of the marriage contract by the two, without the
presenceofasolemnizingofficer.Thetrialcourtthusheld
that the 22
marriage
is void ab initio, in accordance with
23
Articles3 and 4 of the Family Code. As the dissenting
opinion in CAG.R. CR No. 20700, correctly puts it, This
simplymeansthattherewasnomarriagetobeginwith;and
thatsuchdeclarationofnullityretroactstothedateofthe
firstmarriage.Inotherwords,forallintentsandpurposes,
reckoned from the date of the declaration of the first
marriageasvoidab initio to the date of the celebration of
the first marriage, the
accused was, under the eyes of the
24
law,nevermarried. Therecordsshowthatnoappealwas
takenfromthedecisionofthetrialcourtinCivilCaseNo.
6020, hence, the decision had long become final and
executory.
Thefirstelementofbigamyasacrimerequiresthatthe
accused must have been legally married. But in this case,
legallyspeaking,thepetitionerwasnevermarriedtoLucia
Barrete.Thus,thereisnofirstmarriagetospeakof.Under
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
legaleffect.Takingthisargumenttoitslogicalconclusion,
for

_______________
21CARollo,p.38.
22Art.3.Theformalrequisitesofmarriageare:

(1) Authorityofthesolemnizingofficer;
(2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in
Chapter2ofthisTitle;and
(3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of
the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their
personal declaration that they take each other as husband and
wifeinthepresenceofnotlessthantwowitnessesoflegalage.
23 Art. 4. The

absence of any of the essential or formal requisites

shall render the marriage void ab initio except as stated in Article 35

(2).
Adefectinanyoftheessentialrequisitesshallrenderthemarriagevoidableas
providedinArticle45.
An irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the
marriage but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be
civilly,criminallyandadministrativelyliable.
24Rollo,p.54.

384

384

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Morigo vs. People

legal purposes, petitioner was not married to Lucia at the

time he contracted the marriage with Maria Jececha. The
existence and the validity of the first marriage being an
essential element of the crime of bigamy, it is but logical
thataconvictionforsaidoffensecannotbesustainedwhere
thereisnofirstmarriagetospeakof.Thepetitioner,must,
perforcebeacquittedoftheinstantcharge.
The present case is analogous
to, but must be
25
distinguishedfromMercado v. Tan. Inthelattercase,the
judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage was
likewise obtained after the second marriage was already
celebrated.Weheldthereinthat:
Ajudicialdeclarationofnullityofapreviousmarriageisnecessary
beforeasubsequentonecanbelegallycontracted.Onewhoenters
into a subsequent marriage without first obtaining such judicial
declaration is guilty of bigamy. This principle applies even if the

26

earlierunionischaracterizedbystatutesasvoid.

It bears stressing though that in Mercado, the first

marriagewasactuallysolemnizednotjustonce,buttwice:
first before a judge where a marriage certificate was duly
issued and then again six months later before a priest in
religious rites. Ostensibly, at least, the first marriage
appeared to have transpired, although later declared void
ab initio.
In the instant case, however, no marriage ceremony at
allwasperformedbyadulyauthorizedsolemnizingofficer.
Petitioner and Lucia Barrete merely signed a marriage
contract on their own. The mere private act of signing a
marriage contract bears no semblance to a valid marriage
andthus,needsnojudicialdeclarationofnullity.Suchact
alone, without more, cannot be deemed to constitute an
ostensiblyvalidmarriageforwhichpetitionermightbeheld
liable for bigamy unless he first secures a judicial
declaration of nullity before he contracts a subsequent
marriage.
ThelawabhorsaninjusticeandtheCourtismandated
toliberallyconstrueapenalstatuteinfavorofanaccused
andweigheverycircumstanceinfavorofthepresumptionof
innocence to ensure that justice is done. Under the
circumstances of the present case, we held that petitioner
has not committed bigamy. Further, we also find that we
neednottarryontheissueofthevalidityof
_______________
25G.R.No.137110,1August2000,337SCRA122.
26Id.,atp.124.

385

VOL.422,FEBRUARY6,2004

385

People vs. Santiago

hisdefenseofgoodfaithorlackofcriminalintent,whichis
nowmootandacademic.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The
assailed decision, dated October 21, 1999 of the Court of
AppealsinCAG.R.CRNo.20700,aswellastheresolution
of the appellate court dated September 25, 2000, denying
herein petitioners motion for reconsideration, is

REVERSEDandSETASIDE.ThepetitionerLucioMorigo
yCachoisACQUITTEDfromthechargeofBIGAMYonthe
ground that his guilt has not been proven with moral
certainty.
SOORDERED.
Puno (Chairman), AustriaMartinez, Callejo, Sr.and
Tinga, JJ.,concur.
Petition granted, judgment and resolution set aside.
Note.Ajudgeoughttoknowthatasubsistingprevious
marriageisadirimentimpediment,whichwouldmakethe
subsequent marriage null and void. (BorjaManzano vs.
Sanchez,354SCRA1[2001])
o0o

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.