1

CASE DIGEST
Morigo vs People
GR No. 145226, Febr!r" 6, 2##4
FACTS$
Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates in Bohol for four years. After 1978, they
lost contact, but in 1984, Lucia sent a card to Lucia, and after echanges of letters, they
became sweethearts.
Barrete, who had been wor!ing in "anada, #ro#osed to #etition Morigo, and so they got
married in August, 199$. Barrete went bac! to "anada the following month.%n 1991 she filed
a #etition for and was granted di&orce in 'ntario "anada.
Morigo married Maria (ececha Lumbago in 199), and subse*uently filed a com#laint for
+udicial declaration of nullity of his mariage with Barrete on the ground that there was no
marriage ceremony. A bigamy case was filed against Morigo but he #etitioned to mo&e for
sus#ension of arraignment since the #ending ci&il case #osed a #re+udicial *uestion in the
bigamy case. ,e #leaded not guilty claiming that his marriage with Barrete was &oid ab
initio since no ceremony too! #lace and because he contracted the second marriage in
good faith, as he considered the di&orce &alid.
-he ci&il case was decided... that the marriage between Morigo and Barrete was &oid ab
initio while the Bigamy case was #ending.
ISS%E$
/hether or not Morigo must ha&e filed the declaration for the nullity of his marriage to
Barrete before his second marriage in order to be free from the bigamy case
&E'D$
0o. Morigo did not need file the declaration for nullity since his marriage to Barrete was
declared &oid ab initio due to the absence of two formal re*uisites of marriage as stated in
Article 1 of the 2amily code.
Art. 1. -he formal re*uisites of marriage are3
415 Authority of the solemni6ing officer7
4)5 A &alid marriage license ece#t in the cases #ro&ided for in "ha#ter ) of this -itle7 and
415 A marriage ceremony which ta!es #lace with the a##earance of the contracting #arties
before the solemni6ing officer and their #ersonal declaration that they ta!e each other as
husband and wife in the #resence of not less than two witnesses of legal age. 481a, 88a5
Art. 4. -he absence of any of the essential or formal re*uisites shall render the marriage
&oid ab initio, ece#t as stated in Article 18 4)5.
A defect in any of the essential re*uisites shall not affect the &alidity of the marriage
but the #arty or #arties res#onsible for the irregularity shall be ci&illy, criminally and
administrati&ely liable.
Morigo and Barette9s marriage had3
a. no ceremony, and
b. no solemni6ing officer when Morigo and Barette signed their marriage contract
%n the case at bar, the court ruled that the #etitioner did not need to file for the +udicial
declaration of the nullity of marriage before he contracted his second marriage with
Lumbago, since there was no marriage to annul in the first #lace, and since there was no
first marriage, then the crime of bigamy was not committed by Morigo when he married
Lumbago.
Morigo was found not to ha&e committed bigamy.
2
M(RIG( )S PE(P'E *422 SCRA +,6-
:;.<. 0o. 148))=. 2ebruary $=, )$$4>
L?"%' M'<%;' y "A",', #etitioner, &s. @A'@LA '2 -,A @,%L%@@%0AB, res#ondent.
C A " % B % ' 0
D?%B?MB%0;, (.3
-his #etition for re&iew on certiorari see!s to re&erse the decision:1> dated 'ctober )1,
1999 of the "ourt of A##eals in "A.;.<. "< 0o. )$7$$, which affirmed the +udgment:)>
dated August 8, 199= of the <egional -rial "ourt 4<-"5 of Bohol, Branch 4, in "riminal
"ase 0o. 8=88. -he trial court found herein #etitioner Lucio Morigo y "acho guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of bigamy and sentenced him to a #rison term of se&en 475 months of
#rision correccional as minimum to si 4=5 years and one 415 day of #rision mayor as
maimum. Also assailed in this #etition is the resolution:1> of the a##ellate court, dated
Be#tember )8, )$$$, denying MorigoEs motion for reconsideration.
-he facts of this case, as found by the court a *uo, are as follows3
A##ellant Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates at the house of "atalina -ortor
at -agbilaran "ity, @ro&ince of Bohol, for a #eriod of four 445 years 4from 1974.19785.
After school year 1977.78, Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete lost contact with each other.
%n 1984, Lucio Morigo was sur#rised to recei&e a card from Lucia Barrete from Binga#ore.
-he former re#lied and after an echange of letters, they became sweethearts.
%n 198=, Lucia returned to the @hili##ines but left again for "anada to wor! there. /hile in
"anada, they maintained constant communication.
%n 199$, Lucia came bac! to the @hili##ines and #ro#osed to #etition a##ellant to +oin her in
"anada. Both agreed to get married, thus they were married on August 1$, 199$ at the
%glesia de 2ili#ina 0acional at "atagdaan, @ilar, Bohol.
'n Be#tember 8, 199$, Lucia re#orted bac! to her wor! in "anada lea&ing a##ellant Lucio
behind.
'n August 19, 1991, Lucia filed with the 'ntario "ourt 4;eneral Ci&ision5 a #etition for
di&orce against a##ellant which was granted by the court on (anuary 17, 199) and to ta!e
effect on 2ebruary 17, 199).
'n 'ctober 4, 199), a##ellant Lucio Morigo married Maria (ececha Lumbago:4> at the
Firgen sa Barangay @arish, -agbilaran "ity, Bohol.
'n Be#tember )1, 1991, accused filed a com#laint for +udicial declaration of nullity of
marriage in the <egional -rial "ourt of Bohol, doc!eted as "i&il "ase 0o. =$)$. -he
com#laint see! 4sic5 among others, the declaration of nullity of accusedEs marriage with
Lucia, on the ground that no marriage ceremony actually too! #lace.
'n 'ctober 19, 1991, a##ellant was charged with Bigamy in an %nformation:8> filed by the
"ity @rosecutor of -agbilaran :"ity>, with the <egional -rial "ourt of Bohol.:=>
-he #etitioner mo&ed for sus#ension of the arraignment on the ground that the ci&il case for
+udicial nullification of his marriage with Lucia #osed a #re+udicial *uestion in the bigamy
case. ,is motion was granted, but subse*uently denied u#on motion for reconsideration by
the #rosecution. /hen arraigned in the bigamy case, which was doc!eted as "riminal "ase
0o. 8=88, herein #etitioner #leaded not guilty to the charge. -rial thereafter ensued.
'n August 8, 199=, the <-" of Bohol handed down its +udgment in "riminal "ase 0o.
8=88, as follows3
3
/,A<A2'<A, foregoing #remises considered, the "ourt finds accused Lucio Morigo y
"acho guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Bigamy and sentences him to suffer
the #enalty of im#risonment ranging from Be&en 475 Months of @rision "orreccional as
minimum to Bi 4=5 Gears and 'ne 415 Cay of @rision Mayor as maimum.
B' '<CA<AC.:7>
%n con&icting herein #etitioner, the trial court discounted #etitionerEs claim that his first
marriage to Lucia was null and &oid ab initio. 2ollowing Comingo &. "ourt of A##eals,:8> the
trial court ruled that want of a &alid marriage ceremony is not a defense in a charge of
bigamy. -he #arties to a marriage should not be allowed to assume that their marriage is
&oid e&en if such be the fact but must first secure a +udicial declaration of the nullity of their
marriage before they can be allowed to marry again.
Anent the "anadian di&orce obtained by Lucia, the trial court cited <amire6 &. ;mur,:9>
which held that the court of a country in which neither of the s#ouses is domiciled and in
which one or both s#ouses may resort merely for the #ur#ose of obtaining a di&orce, has no
+urisdiction to determine the matrimonial status of the #arties. As such, a di&orce granted
by said court is not entitled to recognition anywhere. Cebun!ing LucioEs defense of good
faith in contracting the second marriage, the trial court stressed that following @eo#le &.
Bitdu,:1$> e&eryone is #resumed to !now the law, and the fact that one does not !now that
his act constitutes a &iolation of the law does not eem#t him from the conse*uences
thereof.
Beasonably, #etitioner filed an a##eal with the "ourt of A##eals, doc!eted as "A.;.<. "<
0o. )$7$$.
Meanwhile, on 'ctober )1, 1997, or while "A.;.<. "< 0o. )$7$$ was #ending before the
a##ellate court, the trial court rendered a decision in "i&il "ase 0o. =$)$ declaring the
marriage between Lucio and Lucia &oid ab initio since no marriage ceremony actually too!
#lace. 0o a##eal was ta!en from this decision, which then became final and eecutory.
'n 'ctober )1, 1999, the a##ellate court decided "A.;.<. "< 0o. )$7$$ as follows3
/,A<A2'<A, finding no error in the a##ealed decision, the same is hereby A22%<MAC in
toto.
B' '<CA<AC.:11>
%n affirming the assailed +udgment of con&iction, the a##ellate court stressed that the
subse*uent declaration of nullity of LucioEs marriage to Lucia in "i&il "ase 0o. =$)$ could
not ac*uit Lucio. -he reason is that what is sought to be #unished by Article 149:1)> of the
<e&ised @enal "ode is the act of contracting a second marriage before the first marriage
had been dissol&ed. ,ence, the "A held, the fact that the first marriage was &oid from the
beginning is not a &alid defense in a bigamy case.
-he "ourt of A##eals also #ointed out that the di&orce decree obtained by Lucia from the
"anadian court could not be accorded &alidity in the @hili##ines, #ursuant to Article 18:11>
of the "i&il "ode and gi&en the fact that it is contrary to #ublic #olicy in this +urisdiction.
?nder Article 17:14> of the "i&il "ode, a declaration of #ublic #olicy cannot be rendered
ineffectual by a +udgment #romulgated in a foreign +urisdiction.
@etitioner mo&ed for reconsideration of the a##ellate courtEs decision, contending that the
doctrine in Mendiola &. @eo#le,:18> allows mista!e u#on a difficult *uestion of law 4such as
the effect of a foreign di&orce decree5 to be a basis for good faith.
'n Be#tember )8, )$$$, the a##ellate court denied the motion for lac! of merit.:1=>
,owe&er, the denial was by a s#lit &ote. -he #onente of the a##ellate courtEs original
decision in "A.;.<. "< 0o. )$7$$, (ustice Augenio B. Labitoria, +oined in the o#inion
#re#ared by (ustice Bernardo @. Abesamis. -he dissent obser&ed that as the first marriage
4
was &alidly declared &oid ab initio, then there was no first marriage to s#ea! of. Bince the
date of the nullity retroacts to the date of the first marriage and since herein #etitioner was,
in the eyes of the law, ne&er married, he cannot be con&icted beyond reasonable doubt of
bigamy.
-he #resent #etition raises the following issues for our resolution3
A./,A-,A< '< 0'- -,A "'?<- '2 A@@AALB A<<AC %0 2A%L%0; -' A@@LG -,A
<?LA -,A- %0 "<%MAB @A0AL%HAC ?0CA< -,A <AF%BAC @A0AL "'CA, "<%M%0AL
%0-A0- %B A0 %0C%B@A0BABLA <AD?%B%-A. "'<'LLA<%LG, /,A-,A< '< 0'- -,A
"'?<- '2 A@@AALB A<<AC %0 2A%L%0; -' A@@<A"%A-A :-,A> @A-%-%'0A<EB LA"I
'2 "<%M%0AL %0-A0- /,A0 ,A "'0-<A"-AC -,A BA"'0C MA<<%A;A.
B./,A-,A< '< 0'- -,A "'?<- '2 A@@AALB A<<AC %0 ,'LC%0; -,A- -,A
<?L%0; %0 @A'@LA FB. B%-C? 488 @,%L. 8175 %B A@@L%"ABLA -' -,A "ABA A- BA<.
"./,A-,A< '< 0'- -,A "'?<- '2 A@@AALB A<<AC %0 2A%L%0; -' A@@LG -,A
<?LA -,A- AA", A0C AFA<G "%<"?MB-A0"A 2AF'<%0; -,A %00'"A0"A '2 -,A
A""?BAC M?B- BA -AIA0 %0-' A""'?0-.:17>
-o our mind, the #rimordial issue should be whether or not #etitioner committed bigamy and
if so, whether his defense of good faith is &alid.
-he #etitioner submits that he should not be faulted for relying in good faith u#on the
di&orce decree of the 'ntario court. ,e highlights the fact that he contracted the second
marriage o#enly and #ublicly, which a #erson intent u#on bigamy would not be doing. -he
#etitioner further argues that his lac! of criminal intent is material to a con&iction or ac*uittal
in the instant case. -he crime of bigamy, +ust li!e other felonies #unished under the
<e&ised @enal "ode, is mala in se, and hence, good faith and lac! of criminal intent are
allowed as a com#lete defense. ,e stresses that there is a difference between the intent to
commit the crime and the intent to #er#etrate the act. ,ence, it does not necessarily follow
that his intention to contract a second marriage is tantamount to an intent to commit bigamy.
2or the res#ondent, the 'ffice of the Bolicitor ;eneral 4'B;5 submits that good faith in the
instant case is a con&enient but flimsy ecuse. -he Bolicitor ;eneral relies u#on our ruling
in Marbella.Bobis &. Bobis,:18> which held that bigamy can be successfully #rosecuted
#ro&ided all the elements concur, stressing that under Article 4$:19> of the 2amily "ode, a
+udicial declaration of nullity is a must before a #arty may re.marry. /hether or not the
#etitioner was aware of said Article 4$ is of no account as e&eryone is #resumed to !now
the law. -he 'B; counters that #etitionerEs contention that he was in good faith because
he relied on the di&orce decree of the 'ntario court is negated by his act of filing "i&il "ase
0o. =$)$, see!ing a +udicial declaration of nullity of his marriage to Lucia.
Before we del&e into #etitionerEs defense of good faith and lac! of criminal intent, we must
first determine whether all the elements of bigamy are #resent in this case. %n Marbella.
Bobis &. Bobis,:)$> we laid down the elements of bigamy thus3
415 the offender has been legally married7
4)5 the first marriage has not been legally dissol&ed, or in case his or her s#ouse is absent,
the absent s#ouse has not been +udicially declared #resum#ti&ely dead7
415 he contracts a subse*uent marriage7 and
445 the subse*uent marriage would ha&e been &alid had it not been for the eistence of the
first.
A##lying the foregoing test to the instant case, we note that during the #endency of "A.
;.<. "< 0o. )$7$$, the <-" of Bohol Branch 1, handed down the following decision in
"i&il "ase 0o. =$)$, to wit3
5
/,A<A2'<A, #remises considered, +udgment is hereby rendered decreeing the
annulment of the marriage entered into by #etitioner Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete on
August )1, 199$ in @ilar, Bohol and further directing the Local "i&il <egistrar of @ilar, Bohol
to effect the cancellation of the marriage contract.
B' '<CA<AC.:)1>he trial court found that there was no actual marriage ceremony
#erformed between Lucio and Lucia by a solemni6ing officer. %nstead, what trans#ired was
a mere signing of the marriage contract by the two, without the #resence of a solemni6ing
officer. -he trial court thus held that the marriage is &oid ab initio, in accordance with
Articles 1:))> and 4:)1> of the 2amily "ode. As the dissenting o#inion in "A.;.<. "< 0o.
)$7$$, correctly #uts it, J-his sim#ly means that there was no marriage to begin with7 and
that such declaration of nullity retroacts to the date of the first marriage. %n other words, for
all intents and #ur#oses, 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.K:)4> -he records show that no a##eal was ta!en from the
decision of the trial court in "i&il "ase 0o. =$)$, hence, the decision had long become final
and eecutory.
-he first element of bigamy as a crime re*uires that the accused must ha&e been legally
married. But in this case, legally s#ea!ing, the #etitioner was ne&er married to Lucia
Barrete. -hus, there is no first marriage to s#ea! of. ?nder the #rinci#le of retroacti&ity of a
marriage being declared &oid ab initio, the two were ne&er married Jfrom the beginning.K
-he contract of marriage is null7 it bears no legal effect. -a!ing this argument to its logical
conclusion, for legal #ur#oses, #etitioner was not married to Lucia at the time he contracted
the marriage with Maria (ececha. -he eistence 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 s#ea! of. -he #etitioner,
must, #erforce be ac*uitted of the instant charge.
-he #resent case is analogous to, but must be distinguished from Mercado &. -an.:)8> %n
the latter case, the +udicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage was li!ewise obtained
after the second marriage was already celebrated. /e held therein that3
A +udicial declaration of nullity of a #re&ious marriage is necessary before a subse*uent one
can be legally contracted. 'ne who enters into a subse*uent marriage without first
obtaining such +udicial declaration is guilty of bigamy. -his #rinci#le a##lies e&en if the
earlier union is characteri6ed by statutes as J&oid.K:)=>
%t bears stressing though that in Mercado, the first marriage was actually solemni6ed not
+ust once, but twice3 first before a +udge where a marriage certificate was duly issued and
then again si months later before a #riest in religious rites. 'stensibly, at least, the first
marriage a##eared to ha&e trans#ired, although later declared &oid ab initio.
%n the instant case, howe&er, no marriage ceremony at all was #erformed by a duly
authori6ed solemni6ing officer. @etitioner and Lucia Barrete merely signed a marriage
contract on their own. -he mere #ri&ate act of signing a marriage contract bears no
semblance to a &alid marriage and thus, needs no +udicial declaration of nullity. Buch act
alone, without more, cannot be deemed to constitute an ostensibly &alid marriage for which
#etitioner might be held liable for bigamy unless he first secures a +udicial declaration of
nullity before he contracts a subse*uent marriage.
-he law abhors an in+ustice and the "ourt is mandated to liberally construe a #enal statute
in fa&or of an accused and weigh e&ery circumstance in fa&or of the #resum#tion of
innocence to ensure that +ustice is done. ?nder the circumstances of the #resent case, we
held that #etitioner has not committed bigamy. 2urther, we also find that we need not tarry
on the issue of the &alidity of his defense of good faith or lac! of criminal intent, which is
now moot and academic.
6
/,A<A2'<A, the instant #etition is ;<A0-AC. -he assailed decision, dated 'ctober )1,
1999 of the "ourt of A##eals in "A.;.<. "< 0o. )$7$$, as well as the resolution of the
a##ellate court dated Be#tember )8, )$$$, denying herein #etitionerEs motion for
reconsideration, is <AFA<BAC and BA- AB%CA. -he #etitioner Lucio Morigo y "acho is
A"D?%--AC from the charge of B%;AMG on the ground that his guilt has not been #ro&en
with moral certainty.
B' '<CA<AC.
@uno, 4"hairman5, Austria.Martine6, "alle+o, Br., and -inga, ((., concur.