G.R. No. 188775. August 24, 2011.
* 308
CENON R. TEVES, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES and DANILO R. BONGALON,
respondents.
Criminal Law; Bigamy; Elements.—Article 349 of the
Revised Penal Code states: 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 elements
of this crime are as follows: 1. That the offender has been
legally married; 2. That the 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.
Same; Same; Declaration of Nullity of Marriage; Where
the absolute nullity of a previous marriage is sought to be
invoked for purposes of contracting a second marriage, the
sole basis acceptable in law for said projected marriage to be
free from legal infirmity is a final judgment declaring the
previous marriage void.—It is evident therefore that
petitioner has committed the crime charged. His contention
that he cannot be charged with bigamy in view of the
declaration of nullity of his first marriage is bereft of merit.
The Family Code has settled once and for all the conflicting
jurisprudence on the matter. A declaration of the absolute
nullity of a mar-
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
3 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
08
Teves vs. People
riage is now explicitly required either as a cause of
action or a ground for defense. Where the absolute nullity of
a previous marriage is sought to be invoked for purposes of
contracting a second marriage, the sole basis acceptable in
law for said projected marriage to be free from legal
infirmity is a final judgment declaring the previous
marriage void.
Same; Same; Same; The finality of the judicial
declaration of the nullity of previous marriage of the accused
cannot be made to retroact to the date of the bigamous
marriage.—Settled is the rule that criminal culpability
attaches to the offender upon the commission of the offense,
and from that instant, liability appends to him until
extinguished as provided by law, and that the time of filing
of the criminal complaint (or Information, in proper cases)
is material only for determining prescription. The crime of
bigamy was committed by petitioner on 10 December 2001
when he contracted a second marriage with Edita. The
finality on 27 June 2006 of the judicial declaration of the
nullity of his previous marriage to Thelma cannot be made
to retroact to the date of the bigamous marriage.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the
Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
R.R. Mendez & Associates Law Offices for
petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondents.
PEREZ, J.:
This Petition for Review seeks the reversal of the 21
January 2009 decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CR No. 31125 affirming in toto the decision of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Malolos
City in Criminal Case No. 2070-M-2006. The RTC
decision2 found petitioner Cenon R.
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato. Jr., and Associate
Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and
Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, concurring; CA Rollo, pp. 75-86.
2 Records, pp. 156-162.
309
VOL. 656, AUGUST 24, 2011 309
Teves vs. People
Teves guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Bigamy penalized under Article 349 of the Revised
Penal Code.
The Facts
On 26 November 1992, a marriage was solemnized
between Cenon Teves (Cenon) and Thelma Jaime-
Teves (Thelma) at the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila.3
After the marriage, Thelma left to work abroad. She
would only come home to the Philippines for vacations.
While on a vacation in 2002, she was informed that
her husband had contracted marriage with a certain
Edita Calderon (Edita). To verify the information, she
went to the National Statistics Office and secured a
copy of the Certificate of Marriage4 indicating that her
husband and Edita contracted marriage on 10
December 2001 at the Divine Trust Consulting
Services, Malhacan, Meycauayan, Bulacan.
On 13 February 2006, Danilo Bongalon, uncle of
Thelma, filed before the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor of Malolos City, Bulacan a
complaint5accusing petitioner of committing bigamy.
Petitioner was charged on 8 June 2006 with bigamy
defined and penalized under Article 349 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, in an Information6 which
reads:
“That on or about the 10th day of December, 2001 up to
the present, in the municipality of Meycauayan, province of
Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said Cenon R. Teves being previously
united in lawful marriage on November 26, 1992 with
Thelma B. Jaime and without the said marriage having
legally dissolved, did then and there willfully, unlaw-
_______________
3 Id., at p. 13.
4 Id., at p. 11.
5 Id., at p. 6.
6 Id., at p. 2.
310
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Teves vs. People
fully and feloniously contract a second marriage with one
Edita T. Calderon, who knowing of the criminal design of
accused Cenon R. Teves to marry her and in concurrence
thereof, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously cooperate in the execution of the offense by
marrying Cenon R. Teves, knowing fully well of the
existence of the marriage of the latter with Thelma B.
Jaime.”
During the pendency of the criminal case for
bigamy, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 130,
Caloocan City, rendered a decision7 dated 4 May 2006
declaring the marriage of petitioner and Thelma null
and void on the ground that Thelma is physically
incapacitated to comply with her essential marital
obligations pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code.
Said decision became final by virtue of a Certification
of Finality8 issued on 27 June 2006.
On 15 August 2007, the trial court rendered its
assailed decision, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is
hereby rendered finding the accused Cenon R. Teves, also
known as Cenon Avelino R. Teves, guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Bigamy penalized under Article 349 of
the Revised Penal Code, as charged in the Information
dated June 8, 2006. Pursuant to the provisions of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of imprisonment of four (4) years, two (2)
months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as
minimum, to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor,
as maximum.”9
Refusing to accept such verdict, petitioner appealed
the decision before the Court of Appeals contending
that the court a quo erred in not ruling that his
criminal action or liability had already been
extinguished. He also claimed that the trial court
erred in finding him guilty of Bigamy despite the
defective Information filed by the prosecution.10
_______________
7 Id., at pp. 82-90.
8 Id., at pp. 91-92.
9 Id., at p. 162.
10 CA Rollo, p. 25. Appellant’s Brief.
311
VOL. 656, AUGUST 24, 2011 311
Teves vs. People
On 21 January 2009, the CA promulgated its
decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the
Decision dated August 15, 2007 in Criminal Case No. 2070-
M-2006 is AFFIRMED in TOTO.”11
On 11 February 2009, petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration of the decision.12 This however, was
denied by the CA in a resolution issued on 2 July
2009.13
Hence, this petition.
Petitioner claims that since his previous marriage
was declared null and void, “there is in effect no
marriage at all, and thus, there is no bigamy to speak
of.”14 He differentiates a previous valid or voidable
marriage from a marriage null and void ab initio, and
posits that the former requires a judicial dissolution
before one can validly contract a second marriage but a
void marriage, for the same purpose, need not be
judicially determined.
Petitioner further contends that the ruling of the
Court in Mercado v. Tan15 is inapplicable in his case
because in the Mercado case the prosecution for
bigamy was initiated before the declaration of nullity
of marriage was filed. In petitioner’s case, the first
marriage had already been legally dissolved at the
time the bigamy case was filed in court.
We find no reason to disturb the findings of the CA.
There is nothing in the law that would sustain
petitioner’s contention.
Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code states:
_______________
11 Id., at p. 85.
12 Id., at pp. 89-99.
13 Id., at pp. 114-115.
14 Rollo, p. 24
15 G.R. No. 137110, 1 August 2000, 337 SCRA 122.
312
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Teves vs. People
“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 elements of this crime are as follows:
1. That the offender has been legally
married;
2. That the 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.”16
The instant case has all the elements of the crime of
bigamy. Thus, the CA was correct in affirming the
conviction of petitioner.
Petitioner was legally married to Thelma on 26
November 1992 at the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Muntinlupa City. He contracted a second or
subsequent marriage with Edita on 10 December 2001
in Meycauayan, Bulacan. At the time of his second
marriage with Edita, his marriage with Thelma was
legally subsisting. It is noted that the finality of the
decision declaring the nullity of his first marriage with
Thelma was only on 27 June 2006 or about five (5)
years after his second marriage to Edita. Finally, the
second or subsequent marriage of petitioner with Edita
has all the essential requisites for validity. Petitioner
has in fact not disputed the validity of such
subsequent marriage.17
It is evident therefore that petitioner has committed
the crime charged. His contention that he cannot be
charged with bigamy in view of the declaration of
nullity of his first mar-
_______________
16 Tenebro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150758, 18 February
2004 423 SCRA, 272, 279 citing Reyes, L.B., the Revised Penal Code,
Book II, 14th Ed., 1998, p. 907.
 17 CA Rollo, p. 62.
313
VOL. 656, AUGUST 24, 2011 313
Teves vs. People
riage is bereft of merit. The Family Code has settled
once and for all the conflicting jurisprudence on the
matter. A declaration of the absolute nullity of a
marriage is now explicitly required either as a cause of
action or a ground for defense. Where the absolute
nullity of a previous marriage is sought to be invoked
for purposes of contracting a second marriage, the sole
basis acceptable in law for said projected marriage to
be free from legal infirmity is a final judgment
declaring the previous marriage void.18
The Family Law Revision Committee and the Civil
Code Revision Committee which drafted what is now
the Family Code of the Philippines took the position
that parties to a marriage should not be allowed to
assume that their marriage is void even if such be the
fact but must first secure a judicial declaration of the
nullity of their marriage before they can be allowed to
marry again.19
In fact, the requirement for a declaration of
absolute nullity of a marriage is also for the protection
of the spouse who, believing that his or her marriage is
illegal and void, marries again. With the judicial
declaration of the nullity of his or her marriage, the
person who marries again cannot be charged with
bigamy.20
In numerous cases,21 this Court has consistently
held that a judicial declaration of nullity is required
before a valid subse-
_______________
18 Domingo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104818, 17 September
1993, 226 SCRA 572, 579.
19 Id., at pp. 579-580.
20 Id., at p. 582, citing J.A.V. Sempio-Diy, Handbook of the
Family Code of the Philippines, p. 46 (1988).
21 A.M. No. 2008-20-SC, 15 March 2010, 615 SCRA 186, 198-
199, Re: Complaint of Mrs. Corazon S. Salvador against Sps. Noel
and Amelia Serafico citing Morigo v. People, G.R. No. 145226, 6
February 2004, 422 SCRA 376; Domingo v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 194818, 17 September 1993, 226 SCRA 572; Terre v. Terre, A.C.
No. 2349, 3 July 1992, 211 SCRA 7; Wiegel v. Sempio-Diy, No. L-
53703, 19 August 1986, 143 SCRA 499; Vda. De Consuegra v. Gov-
314
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Teves vs. People
quent marriage can be contracted; or else, what
transpires is a bigamous marriage, reprehensible and
immoral.
If petitioner’s contention would be allowed, a person
who commits bigamy can simply evade prosecution by
immediately filing a petition for the declaration of
nullity of his earlier marriage and hope that a
favorable decision is rendered therein before anyone
institutes a complaint against him.
 We note that in petitioner’s case the complaint was ernment Service Insurance System, No. L-28093, 30 January
1971, 37 SCRA 315; Gomez v. Lipana, No. L-23214, 30 June 1970, 33
filed before the first marriage was declared a nullity. It SCRA 614.
was only the filing of the Information that was 22 De Jesus v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101630, 24 August
overtaken by the declaration of nullity of his first 1992, 212 SCRA 823, 830.
marriage. Following petitioner’s argument, even 315
assuming that a complaint has been instituted, such VOL. 656, AUGUST 24, 2011 315
as in this case, the offender can still escape liability Teves vs. People
provided that a decision nullifying his earlier marriage WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review is
precedes the filing of the Information in court. Such DENIED and the assailed Decision dated 21 January
cannot be allowed. To do so would make the crime of 2009 of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED in toto.
bigamy dependent upon the ability or inability of the Costs against petitioner.
Office of the Public Prosecutor to immediately act on SO ORDERED.
complaints and eventually file Informations in court. Carpio (Chairperson), Brion,
Plainly, petitioner’s strained reading of the law is Peralta** and Mendoza,*** JJ., concur.
against its simple letter. Petition denied, judgment affirmed.
Settled is the rule that criminal culpability attaches Note.—The pendency of a civil case for declaration
to the offender upon the commission of the offense, and of nullity of marriage is not a prejudicial question in a
from that instant, liability appends to him until prosecution for concubinage or bigamy. (Marbella-
extinguished as provided by law, and that the time of Bobis vs. Bobis, 336 SCRA 747 [2000])
filing of the criminal complaint (or Information, in
proper cases) is material only for determining ——o0o——
prescription.22 The crime of bigamy was committed by © Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
petitioner on 10 December 2001 when he contracted a reserved.
second marriage with Edita. The finality on 27 June
2006 of the judicial declaration of the nullity of his
previous marriage to Thelma cannot be made to
retroact to the date of the bigamous marriage.
_______________