9/16/2016

G.R.No.159031

TodayisFriday,September16,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
G.R.No.159031June23,2014
NOELA.LASANAS,Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Respondent.
DECISION
BERSAMIN,J.:
Anypersonwhocontractsasecondmarriagewithoutfirsthavingajudicialdeclarationofthenullityofhisorher
firstmarriage,albeitonitsfacevoidandinexistentforlackofamarriagelicense,isguiltyofbigamyasdefined
andpenalizedbyArticle349oftheRevisedPenalCode.
TheCase
TheaccusedseeksthereversalofthedecisionpromulgatedonAugust29,2002,1wherebytheCourtofAppeals
(CA)affirmedhisconvictionforbigamyunderthejudgmentrenderedonOctober30,2000inCriminalCaseNo.
49808bytheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch38,inIloiloCity.
Antecedents
OnFebruary16,1968,2JudgeCarlosB.SalazaroftheMunicipalTrialCourtofSanMiguel,Iloilosolemnizedthe
marriageofaccusedNoelLasanasandSocorroPatingo3withoutthebenefitofamarriagelicense.4Therecords
showthatLasanasandPatingohadnotexecutedanyaffidavitofcohabitationtoexcusethelackofthemarriage
license.5OnAugust27,1980,LasanasandPatingoreaffirmedtheirmarriagevowsinareligiousceremonybefore
Fr. Rodolfo Tamayo at the San Jose Church in Iloilo City.6 They submitted no marriage license or affidavit of
cohabitation for that purpose.7 Both ceremonies were evidenced by the corresponding marriage certificates.8 In
1982,LasanasandPatingoseparateddefactobecauseofirreconcilabledifferences.9
On December 27, 1993, the accused contracted marriage with Josefa Eslaban in a religious ceremony
solemnizedbyFr.RamonSequitoattheSta.MariaChurchinIloiloCity.Theirmarriagecertificatereflectedthe
civilstatusoftheaccusedassingle.10
OnJuly26,1996,theaccusedfiledacomplaintforannulmentofmarriageanddamagesagainstSocorrointhe
RTC in Iloilo City,11 which was docketed as Civil Case No. 23133 and raffled to Branch 39 of the RTC. The
complaintallegedthatSocorrohademployeddeceit,misrepresentationsandfraudinsecuringhisconsenttotheir
marriageandthatsubsequentmaritalbreaches,psychologicalincompatibilitiesandherinfidelityhadcausedhim
tosuffermentalanguish,sleeplessnightsandsocialhumiliationwarrantingtheawardofdamages.Insupportof
hiscomplaint,hefurtheralleged,amongothers,that:
HewasmarriedtothedefendantonFebruary16,1968whichmarriagewasofficiatedbyHon.CarlosB.Salazar,
MunicipalJudgeofSanMiguel,Iloilo.MachinecopyoftheMarriageContractisherewithattachedasExhibit"A"
and made part hereof which marriage was ratified by a wedding at San Jose Church, Iloilo City on August 27,
1980 and registered at the office of Iloilo City Registrar. Machine copy of the Marriage Contract is herewith
attachedasAnnex"B"
Plaintiffanddefendanthavenochildrenandhavenopropertiesexceptsomepersonalbelongings
Plaintiff met the defendant sometime in the middle of 1967 at the house of Mr. Raul L. Cataloctocan in Burgos
Street,Lapaz,IloiloCitywhereinthepurposeoftheirmeetingwasfortheplaintifftoconsultandseektreatment
bythedefendantbecausethelatterwasa"babaylan":Plaintiffwastreatedbythedefendantandthesubsequent
treatments were performed by the defendant at her residence in Barangay, Banga, Mina, Iloilo, the treatment
madebeingonacontinuingbasis
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_159031_2014.html

1/7

9/16/2016

G.R.No.159031

xxxx
On February 16, 1968, defendant asked the plaintiff to come with her to Iloilo City. They went to Dainty
RestaurantatJ.M.BasaStreet.Plaintiffsawseveralpersonstherein.Aftereatingplaintiffwasmadetosignthe
marriage contract, which was null and void for lack of marriage license and based on a false affidavit of
cohabitation.Aftertheirmarriage,theywenthometoBarangayBangac,Mina,Iloilo,whichmarkedthestartofa
married life rocked with marital differences, quarrels and incompatibilities, without love, but under the
uncontrollablefearofharmthatshouldbefallhimshouldhenotfollowher
xxxx
During the period the parties are living together defendant would nag the plaintiff, fabricate stories against him
and displayed her fit of jealousy, neglect her marital obligations even committed infidelity, which psychological
incompatibilitiesandmaritalbreacheshaveforcedthepetitionertoliveseparatelyfromdefendantsince1982up
tothepresent.12
In October 1998, Socorro charged the accused with bigamy in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Iloilo City.13
Afterdueproceedings,theaccusedwasformallyindictedforbigamyundertheinformationfiledonOctober20,
1998intheRTC,viz:
Thatonoraboutthe27thdayofDecember,1993intheCityofIloilo,Philippinesandwithinthejurisdictionofthis
Court,saidaccused,NoelLasanasbeingpreviouslyunitedinalawfulmarriagewithSocorroPatingoandwithout
the said marriage having been legally dissolve (sic) or annulled, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniouslycontractasecondorsubsequentmarriagewithJosefaEslaban.
CONTRARYTOLAW.14
Thecriminalcase,docketedasCriminalCaseNo.49808,wasraffledtoBranch38oftheRTCinIloiloCity.The
accusedpleadednotguiltyathisarraignment,15andtrialensuedinduecourse.
Inthemeanwhile,onNovember24,1998,theRTC(Branch39)rendereditsjudgmentinCivilCaseNo.23133
dismissing the accuseds complaint for annulment of marriage, and declaring the marriage between him and
Socorrovalidandlegal,asfollows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the complaint filed by the plaintiff
Noel Arenga Lasanas against the defendant, Socorro Patingo, considering that the marriage between them is
validandlegal.
TheplaintiffNoelLasanasisherebyorderedtogivemonthlysupporttohiswife,thedefendantinthiscase,Ma.
SocorroPatingointheamountofP3,000.00amonth,fromthetimethatshefiledheranswerwithcounterclaimon
February 3, 1997, pursuant to Article 203 of the Family Code and every month thereafter. Costs against the
plaintiff.
SOORDERED.16
TheaccusedappealedtotheCA.17
RulingoftheRTC
OnOctober30,2000,theRTC(Branch38)rendereditsassaileddecisioninCriminalCaseNo.49808,disposing
thusly:
WHEREFORE, finding accused NOEL LASANAS guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of BIGAMY
punishable under Art. 349 of the Revised Penal Code, judgment is hereby entered ordering him to serve an
indeterminatepenaltyofimprisonmentoftwo(2)yearsandfour(4)monthsofprisioncorreccional,asminimum,
toeight(8)yearsandone(1)dayofprisionmayorasmaximum.
TheaccusedisentitledtotheprivilegesextendedtohimunderArt.29oftheRevisedPenalCode.
SOORDERED.18
DecisionoftheCAAggrieved,theaccusedappealedhisconvictiontotheCA,insistingthattheRTCtherebyerred
infindingthathehadlegallymarriedSocorrodespitetheabsenceofthemarriagelicense,affidavitofcohabitation
andaffidavitofthesolemnizingofficer.
TheaccusedcontendedthatbecausehehadnotbeenlegallymarriedtoSocorro,thefirstelementofbigamywas
not established that his good faith and the absence of criminal intent were absolutory in his favor and that he
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_159031_2014.html

2/7