4. Montanez v Cipriano_ARCELLANA

Digest Author: Arcellana

Montanez v. Cipriano (2012) Petitioner: Merlinda Montanes Respondent: Lourdes Cipriano DOCTRINE: The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage would not change the fact that she contracted the second marriage during the substistence of the first marriage. FACTS: 1. Respondent Cipriano Cipriano married Socrates on 1976 in Aklan. On 1983, respondent married Silverio Cipriano during the subsistence of the first marriage. 2. Respondent then filed a Petition for Annulment of her first first marriage with Socrates on the grounds of psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family Code. Such marriage was then declared null and void. 3. Petitioner, Silverio’s daughter from a previous marriage, filed a case for Bigamy against Respondent. This was with an affidavit stating that respondent failed to reveal to Silverio that she was still married to Socrates. 4. Respondent then alleged alleged that her marriage with Socrates had already already been declared void and thus there was no more marriage to speak of. 5. The prosecution prosecution argued that bigamy bigamy was already consummated consummated upon filing the declaration for nullity. 6. RTC denied denied respondent’s motion, saying that petitioner had already committed bigamy and that such action has not yet prescribed. 7. Respondent filed an MR, claiming that the RTC’s legal basis (jurisprudence) was not applicable since the first marriage was contracted before the Family Code and that the annulment was granted before the complaint for bigamy was filed. 8. RTC ruled that that at the time accused accused had contracted contracted the 2 nd marriage before the effectivity of the Family Code, the existing law did not require a judicial declaration of absolute nullity as a condition precedent to contracting a subsequent marriage. 9. It also found that both marriages marriages of respondent was was done before the Family Code, thus laws should be interpreted liberally for the accused. Therefore the absence of a judicial declaration should not prejudice the accused whose second marriage was considered valid.

ISSUES: 1. WON – WON – the declaration of nullity of respondent’s first marriage justifies the

ambivalent such that a person was allowed to enter a subsequent marriage without annulment of the first, without incurring criminal liability. RULING + RATIO: 1. No. respondent is liable liable for bigamy bigamy The elements of bigamy are that: a) offender has been legally married b)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 c) he contracts a subsequent marriage, and d) the subsequent marriage has all the requisites for validity. It is consummated on the celebration of the subsequent marriage. What is essential for the prosecution of bigamy is that the alleged second marriage, having all the requirements, would be valid were it not for the subsistence of the first marriage. In this case, when respondent contracted the 2 nd marriage with Silverio, her 1 st marriage was still subsisting and had not been declared annulled or void. Thus all elements of bigamy were alleged in the Information. Based on the Information, the annulment of the 1 st marriage was only declared in 2003. In several cases, it was held that the subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the 1st marriage was immaterial because prior to the declaration, the bi gamy had already been consummated. Even if the accused eventually obtained a declaration that his first marriage was void ab initio, the point is, the first and second marriage were subsisting. The moment the accused contracted a 2 nd marriage without the previous one being judicially declared null and void, bigamy was already consummated. Here, at the time of the 2 nd marriage, the first was still subsisting. Thus bigamy was properly charge to her. Respondent calims that the legal basis is not applicable since the declaration of nullity came before the filinf of information. But what makes a person criminally liable for bigamy is when he contracts a 2 nd  marriage during the subsistence of the first. 2. No. In this case, respondent wants to obtain a judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage and invoke it to prevent prosecution for bigamy. Such is not possible. A party may evnter into a marriage license and therafter contract a subsequent marriage without obtaining a declaration of nullity of the first on the assumption that the first marriage is void.