SERMONIA VS CA bel
FACTS:
Petitioner was charged with bigamy for having contracted a marriage with Ma. Lourdes Unson while his
prior marriage with Virginia Nievera was still valid
Petitioner contends that:
His criminal liability for bigamy has been extinguished by prescription
The prescription commenced to run on the day the marriage contract between him and Unson was
registered.
The registration of the marriage makes it a public record and therefore he doesn’t show any motive in
concealing the said marriage.
Respondent contends that:
The prescription period begins at the time of discovery of the crime by the complainant not from the
commission of the crime.
ISSUE:
Is the criminal liability of Sermonia extinguished because of prescription?
HELD: NO
Constructive notice in Civil Cases may be applied in criminal action but not in the crime of bigamy.
o If prescription will be counted at the time of registration then it would be like absolving the
offender from any liability
There was concealment of the second marriage
o Even if the ceremony was open to all then why would he put single in the marriage contract?
o He could have just told his first wife about the 2nd marriage if it was not his intention to conceal it
o He knew that no priest would authorized a bigamous marriage
CASE DISMISSED
Mercado vs. Tan
337 SCRA 122
FACTS:
Dr. Vicent Mercado was previously married with Thelma Oliva in 1976 before he contracted marriage with Consuelo Tan in 1991 which the latter claims she did
not know. Tan filed bigamy against Mercado and after a month the latter filed an action for declaration of nullity of marriage against Oliva. The decision in 1993
declared marriage between Mercado and Oliva null and void.
ISSUE: Whether Mercado committed bigamy in spite of filing the declaration of nullity of the former marriage.
HELD:
A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is necessary before a subsequent one can be legally contracted. One who enters into a subsequent
marriage without first obtaining such judicial declaration is guilty of bigamy. This principle applies even if the earlier union is characterized by statute as “void.”
In the case at bar, Mercado only filed the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Oliva right after Tan filed bigamy case. Hence, by then, the crime had already
been consummated. He contracted second marriage without the judicial declaration of the nullity. The fact that the first marriage is void from the beginning is not
a defense in a bigamy charge.
VERONICO TENEBRO, petitioner, v.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondent.
G.R. No. 150758. February 18, 2004.
Facts:
Petitioner Veronico Tenebro contracted marriage with private complainant Leticia
Ancajas on April 10, 1990. The two were wed by Judge Alfredo B. Perez, Jr. of the City
Trial Court of Lapu-lapu City. Tenebro and Ancajas lived together continuously and
without interruption until the latter part of 1991, when Tenebro informed Ancajas that he
had been previously married to a certain Hilda Villareyes on November 10, 1986. Tenebro
showed Ancajas a photocopy of a marriage contract between him and Villareyes. Invoking
this previous marriage, petitioner thereafter left the conjugal dwelling which he shared
with Ancajas, stating that he was going to cohabit with Villareyes.
On January 25, 1993, petitioner contracted yet another marriage, this one with a certain
Nilda Villegas, before Judge German Lee, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City,
Branch 15. When Ancajas learned of this third marriage, she verified from Villareyes
whether the latter was indeed married to petitioner. In a handwritten letter, Villareyes
confirmed that petitioner, Veronico Tenebro, was indeed her husband.
Ancajas thereafter filed a complaint for bigamy against petitioner.
The trial court rendered a decision finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of bigamy. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decisionof the trial
court.
Issue:
Whether or not the court erred in convicting the accused for the crime of bigamy despite
clear proof that the marriage between the accused and private complainant had
been declared null and void ab initio and without legal force and effect
Ruling:
As such, an individual who contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the
subsistence of a valid marriage is criminally liable for bigamy, notwithstanding the
subsequent declaration that the second marriage is void ab initio on the ground of
psychological incapacity.
As a second or subsequent marriage contracted during the subsistence of petitioner’s
valid marriage to Villareyes, petitioner’s marriage to Ancajas would be null and void ab
initio completely regardless of petitioner’s psychological capacity or incapacity. Since a
marriage contracted during the subsistence of a valid marriage is automatically void, the
nullity of this second marriage is not per se an argument for the avoidance of criminal
liability for bigamy.
Thus, as soon as the second marriage to Ancajas was celebrated on April 10, 1990, during
the subsistence of the valid first marriage, the crime of bigamy had already been
consummated. Moreover, the declaration of the nullity of the second marriage on the
ground of psychological incapacity is not an indicator that petitioner’s marriage to
Ancajas lacks the essential requisites for validity. In this case, all the essential and formal
requisites for the validity of marriage were satisfied by petitioner and Ancajas. Both were
over eighteen years of age, and they voluntarily contracted the second marriage with the
required license before Judge Alfredo B. Perez, Jr. of the City Trial Court of Lapu-lapu
City, in the presence of at least two witnesses. The decision of the Court of Appeal
Armas vs. Calisterio
GR No. 136467, April 6, 2000
FACTS:
Teodorico Calisterio, husband of Marietta Calisterio, the respondent, died intestate in April 1992 leaving several parcel of land estimated value of
P604,750.00. He was the second husband of Marietta who was previously married with William Bounds in January 1946. The latter disappeared without a trace
in February 1947. 11 years later from the disappearance of Bounds, Marietta and Teodorico were married in May 1958 without Marietta securing a court
declaration of Bounds’ presumptive death.
Antonia Armas y Calisterio, surviving sister of Teodorico filed a petition claiming to be the sole surviving heir of the latter and that marriage between Marietta and
his brother being allegedly bigamous is thereby null and void. She prayed that her son Sinfroniano be appointed as administrator, without bond, of the estate of
the deceased and inheritance be adjudicated to her after all the obligations of the estate would have been settled.
ISSUE: Whether Marrieta and Teodorico’s marriage was void due to the absence of the declaration of presumptive death.
HELD:
The marriage between the respondent and the deceased was solemnized in May 1958 where the law in force at that time was the Civil Code and not the Family
Code which only took effect in August 1988. Article 256 of the Family Code itself limit its retroactive governance only to cases where it thereby would not
prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws. Since Civil Code provides that declaration of presumptive death is
not essential before contracting marriage where at least 7 consecutive years of absence of the spouse is enough to remarry then Marrieta’s marriage with
Teodorico is valid and therefore she has a right can claim portion of the estate.
Republic vs. Nolasco
220 SCRA 20
FACTS:
Gregorio Nolasco is a seaman. He met Janet Parker, a British, in bar in England. After that, Janet started living with Nolasco in his ship for six months. It lasted
until the contract of Nolasco expired then he brought her to his hometown in Antique. They got married in January 1982. Due to another contract, Nolasco left
the province. In 1983, Nolasco received a letter from his mother informing him that his son had been born but 15 days after, Janet left. Nolasco went home and
cut short his contract to find Janet’s whereabouts. He did so by securing another seaman’s contract going to London. He wrote several letters to the bar where
they first met but it was all returned. Gregorio petitioned in 1988 for a declaration of presumptive death of Janet.
ISSUE: Whether or not Nolasco had a well-founded belief that his wife, Janet, is already dead?
HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled that Nolasco’s efforts to locate Janet were not persistent to show that he has a well-founded belief that his wife was already dead
because instead of seeking assistance of local authorities and the British Embassy, he even secured another contract. More so, while he was in London, he did
not even try to solicit help of the authorities to find his wife.
