Morigo vs.

People
FACTS: Appellant Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates. After
school year 1977-78 Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete lost contact with each
other. Lucio Morigo was surprised to recei!e a card from Lucia Barrete. "he
former replied and after an e#change of letters they became sweethearts.
Lucia returned to the $hilippines but left again for %anada to wor& there.
'hile in %anada they maintained constant communication. Lucia came bac&
to the $hilippines and proposed to petition appellant to (oin her in %anada.
Both agreed to get married thus they were married. Lucia reported bac& to
her wor& in %anada. Lucia filed with the )ntario %ourt a petition for di!orce
against appellant which was granted. Appellant Lucio married Maria *ececha
Lumbago. Lucio filed a complaint for (udicial declaration of nullity of
marriage on the ground of that no marriage ceremony actually too& place.
+owe!er appellant Lucio was charged with Bigamy in ,nformation filed by
the %ity $rosecutor. "he -"% ruled con!icting appellant due to the reason
that want of a !alid marriage ceremony is not a defense in a charge of
bigamy. $endency of the appeal the trial court rendered a decision declaring
declaring the marriage between Lucio and Lucia !oid ab initio since no
marriage ceremony actually too& place. %A held affirming the decision of the
-"% con!icting the appellant.
ISSUE: 'hether or not there was a marriage between appellant Lucio
Morigo and Lucia Barrete to support the charge of bigamy.
HELD: "he trial court found that there was no actual marriage ceremony
performed between Lucio and Lucia 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. "he trial court thus held that the
marriage is !oid ab initio in accordance with Articles /
0112
and 3
01/2
of the
4amily %ode. As the dissenting opinion in %A-5.-. %- 6o. 17777 correctly
puts it 8"his simply means that there was no marriage to begin with9 and
that such declaration of nullity retroacts to the date of the first marriage. ,n
other words for all intents and purposes rec&oned from the date of the
declaration of the first marriage as !oid ab initio to the date of the
celebration of the first marriage the accused was under the eyes of the law
ne!er married.:
0132
"he records show that no appeal was ta&en from the
decision of the trial court in %i!il %ase 6o. ;717 hence the decision had
long become final and e#ecutory.
"he first element of bigamy as a crime re<uires that the accused must
ha!e been legally married. But in this case legally spea&ing the petitioner
was ne!er married to Lucia Barrete. "hus there is no first marriage to spea&
of. =nder the principle of retroacti!ity of a marriage being declared !oid ab
initio the two were ne!er married 8from the beginning.: "he contract of
marriage is null9 it bears no legal effect. "a&ing this argument to its logical
conclusion for legal purposes petitioner was not married to Lucia at the
time he contracted the marriage with Maria *ececha. "he e#istence and the
!alidity of the first marriage being an essential element of the crime of
bigamy it is but logical that a con!iction for said offense cannot be sustained
where there is no first marriage to spea& of. "he petitioner must perforce
be ac<uitted of the instant charge.