G.R. No. 188775.

August 24, 2011.*

CENON R. TEVES, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF

PHILIPPINES and DANILO R. BONGALON, respondents.

THE

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.
308

308

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

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-M2006. 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 complaint5 accusing 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. Appellants 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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

31
2

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. Gov314

31
4

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Teves vs. People

quent marriage can be contracted; or else, what transpires is a
bigamous marriage, reprehensible and immoral.
If petitioners 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 petitioners case

the complaint was filed before the first marriage was declared a
nullity. It was only the filing of the Information that was overtaken
by the declaration of nullity of his first marriage. Following
petitioners argument, even assuming that a complaint has been
instituted, such as in this case, the offender can still escape liability
provided that a decision nullifying his earlier marriage precedes the
filing of the Information in court. Such cannot be allowed. To do so
would make the crime of bigamy dependent upon the ability or
inability of the Office of the Public Prosecutor to immediately act on
complaints and eventually file Informations in court. Plainly,
petitioners strained reading of the law is against its simple letter.
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.22 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.
_______________
ernment Service Insurance System, No. L-28093, 30 January 1971, 37 SCRA 315;
Gomez v. Lipana, No. L-23214, 30 June 1970, 33 SCRA 614.
22 De Jesus v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101630, 24 August 1992, 212 SCRA
823, 830.
315

VOL. 656, AUGUST 24, 2011

Teves vs. People

315

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review is DENIED and

the assailed Decision dated 21 January 2009 of the Court of Appeals
is AFFIRMED in toto.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Peralta** and Mendoza,*** JJ.,
concur.
Petition denied, judgment affirmed.
Note.The pendency of a civil case for declaration of nullity of
marriage is not a prejudicial question in a prosecution for
concubinage or bigamy. (Marbella-Bobis vs. Bobis, 336 SCRA 747

[2000])
o0o
Copyright 2012 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.