Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 193194 (Ramon P. Guevarra, Jr. v. People of the Philippines).-

This case is about a man's claim that he is not liable for bigamy since he was merely instigated and deceived into marrying a second time while the first marriage subsists.

The Facts and the Case 

Complainant Carolina L. Alejo first met petitioner Ramon P. Guevarra, Jr. when she rode the passenger jeepney he was driving. They quickly developed a liking for each other. After a brief courtship, she agreed to marry him in civil rites on October 3, 2000. They lived together in Carolina's house in Obando, Bulacan.^[1] 

After three months into the marriage, Ramon ceased coming home at night, prompting Carolina to check on his whereabouts. She tailed him one day and saw him enter a house in Valenzuela. By chance, someone came out of the house and she learned upon inquiry that a certain "Mercy" lived there. The latter turned out to be Ramon's first wife.^[2]

Carolina at first could not believe what she learned. This made her inquire from the local chapter of the Iglesia ni Cristo, to which church Ramon belonged, and it confirmed what she learned. She also found out that Ramon had two children by his wife Mercy. Carolina secured a copy of the marriage contract between Ramon and Mercy (Mauricia N. Drueco) from the Local Civil Registrar of Valenzuela, showing that the two were married on January 29, 1992, eight years before he married Carolina.^[3]

Upon Carolina's complaint, on June 4, 2001 the public prosecutor filed an information^[4] for bigamy against Ramon before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, (Branch 17) in Criminal Case 1459-M-2001.

After trial or on December 15, 2005 the RTC rendered judgment, finding Ramon guilty as charged. It held that Carolina's testimony and the marriage contracts Ramon entered into showed that he contracted a second marriage while the first was still subsisting. The RTC sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six months and one day of prision correccional as minimum to six years and one day of prision mayor as maximum.

On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), the latter court rendered a decision dated October 30, 2009,^[5] affirming the judgment of the RTC. Ramon moved for reconsideration but the CA denied it,^[6]  hence, the present petition.

Issue Presented

The sole issue presented in this case is whether or not the CA erred in rejecting Ramon's defense that Carolina merely instigated and deceived him into marrying her, thus producing no valid second marriage.

The Court's Ruling

Ramon does not deny that he had been married twice, the second while the first was still subsisting.^[7]  But, according to him, the crime of bigamy requires under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code four conditions: 

(a) The offender is legally married;
(b) The marriage is not legally dissolved;
(c) The offender contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and
(d) The second or subsequent marriage would have been valid had it not been for the existence of the first.

For bigamy to lie, Ramon insists that the illegality of the second marriage should proceed solely from the fact that the accused had been previously married and that such previous marriage still subsists when the second marriage was celebrated. His point is that the second marriage would have been valid had it not been for the first marriage.^[8] Since, according to him, Carolina instigated and deceived him into marrying her, that marriage was clearly inexistent and void from the beginning.^[9]

Ramon assumes, however, that his second marriage should be regarded as void from the beginning since Carolina had instigated and deceived him into marrying her. A consequence of this is that the prosecution had not proved the fourth element, namely, that the second or subsequent marriage would have been valid had it not been for the existence of the first. But, except for the fact of his prior marriage, Ramon's marriage to Carolina, covered by marriage license and celebrated by a person having such authority, may be presumed valid. The burden was on Ramon to prove that his consent to such second marriage was, as he claimed, vitiated. He, however, failed in this.

That Carolina instigated Ramon into marrying her and that she did not verify his civil status^[10] does not render their marriage void. It is doubtful that "instigation" amounts to the fraud or vitiation of consent that under Articles 45 (3)^[11] and (4),^[12] and 46^[13] of the Family Code renders a marriage voidable. At any rate, under the law, a marriage, even one which is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding.^[14]

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision dated October 30, 2009 and resolution dated July 5, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR 31601 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

  Very truly yours,

MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
  Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
  Asst. Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 46, 119.

^[2] Id. at 47, 120-121. 

^[3] Id. at 47, 121. 

^[4] Id. at 83-84. 

^[5] Id. at 46-53, Penned by Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now a member of this court), with Justices Magdangal M. de Leon and Ricardo R. Rosario concurring. 

^[6] Id. at 54-55. 

^[7] Id. at 25, 32, 39. 

^[8] Id. at 32-37. 

^[9] Id. at 37-40. 

^[10] Id. at 30. 

^[11] Art. 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of marriage:

x x x x 

(3) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party after wards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife; 

x x x x

^[12] Art. 45. x x x x

x x x 

(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation or undue influence, unless the same having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife; 

x x x x

^[13] Art. 46. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in Number 3 of the preceding Article:

(1) Non-disclosure of a previous conviction by final judgment of the other party of a crime involving moral turpitude; 

(2) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband; 

(3) Concealment of a sexually transmissible disease, regardless of its nature, existing at the time of the marriage; 

(4) Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time of the marriage. 

No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give ground for action for the annulment of marriage.

^[14] Jarillo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 164435, September 29, 2009, 601 SCRA 236, 245-246.