Case No.

69

Jarillo vs. People

Facts:

Defendant-Appellant Victoria Jarillo and Rafael Alocillo were married two

times, one on May 24, 1974 in a civil wedding ceremony solemnized by the
then Municipal Mayor of Taguig, Rizal and the other on May 4, 1975 in a
church wedding in San Carlos City, Pangasinan. On November 26, 1979
Appellant Victoria Jarillo thereafter contracted a subsequent marriage with
Emmanuel Ebora Santos Uy, at the City Court of Pasay City. Thus Appellant
contracted two legal marriages. Upon the knowledge of Emmanuel Ebora
Santos Uy to the two subsisting marriages committed by the Defendant-
Appellant, he then filed against the Defendant-Appellant for annulment of
marriage, before the RTC Manila, thereafter, Apellant was charged with Bigamy
before the RTC Pasay. Incidentally, Appellant filed against her first husband
Alocillo, before the Regional Trial Court of Makati for declaration of nullity of
their marriage.

RTC found Defendant-Appellant guilty for the crime of Bigamy. For her
defense, petitioner insisted that (1) her 1974 and 1975 marriages to Alocillo
were null and void because Alocillo was allegedly still married to a certain
Loretta Tillman at the time of the celebration of their marriage; (2) her
marriages to both Alocillo and Uy were null and void for lack of a valid
marriage license; and (3) the action had prescribed, since Uy knew about her
marriage to Alocillo as far back as 1978.
On appeal to the CA, petitioner’s conviction was affirmed. In its Decision
dated July 21, 2003, the CA held that petitioner committed bigamy when she
contracted marriage with Emmanuel Santos Uy because, at that time, her
marriage to Rafael Alocillo had not yet been declared null and void by the
court.
Recently, the RTC of Makati City, In the meantime, the RTC of Makati
City, rendered a Decision, declaring petitioners 1974 and 1975 marriages to
Alocillo null and void ab initio on the ground of Alocillos psychological
incapacity.
 As a response, the Appellant-Defendant prayed to the CA, she contends
the said declaration declaration of nullity as a ground for the reversal of her
conviction.

As a response, the CA, denied reconsideration and ruled that the

subsequent declaration of nullity of her first marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity, while it retroacts to the date of the celebration of the
marriage insofar as the vinculum between the spouses is concerned, the said
marriage is not without legal consequences, among which is incurring criminal
liability for bigamy.

Thus this petition.

Issue:

Whether or Not the Court of Appeals erred for affirming the decision of
the trial court for the conviction of Jarillo for the crime of bigamy despite the
nullity of marriage to her marriage to Alocillo had been declared void.

Ruling:

No. Jarillo’s conviction of the crime of bigamy was affirmed by the

Supreme Court. The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of her marriage
to Alocillo cannot be considered a valid defense in the crime of bigamy. The
moment petitioner contracted a second marriage without the previous one
having been judicially declared null and void, the crime of bigamy was already
consummated. The reason for that is, under the law, without a judicial
declaration of its nullity, the first marriage is presumed to be subsisting. In the
case at hand, appellant was for all legal intents and purposes regarded as a
married man at the time he contracted his second marriage with petitioner.

And also the High Court, citing Abunado v. People, states that “by which, any
decision in the civil action for nullity would not erase the fact that respondent
entered into a second marriage during the subsistence of a first
marriage. Thus, a decision in the civil case is not essential to the determination
of the criminal charge”
Case No. 70

Silverio vs. Republic

G.R. No. 174689

October 22 2007

Facts:

On November 26, 2002, petitioner Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a

petition for the change of his first name and sex in his birth certificate in the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 8. The petition impleaded the civil
registrar of Manila as respondent.

The Petitioner, having undergone a sex reassignment surgery in

Bangkok, sought to have his first name changed from Rommel to Mely, and his
sex from male to female. The Regional Trial Court granted his petition,
believing that the said petitioner causes no harm, injury or prejudice that will
be caused to anybody or the community for granting it. Court of Appeals,
however, upon appeal filed by the Republic of the Philippines thru the Office of
the Solicitor General, reversed the trial court decision, holding that there is no
law allowing the change of entries of either name or sex in the birth certificate
by reason of sex alteration.

Issue:

Whether or not Rommel's first name and sex be changed and allowed on
the ground of sex reassignment?

Ruling:

No. The Supreme Court finds the petition lacks merit. A change of name
is a privilege and not a right. It may be allowed in cases where the name is
ridiculous, tainted with dishonor, or difficult to pronounce or write; a nickname
is habitually used; or if the change will avoid confusion. The petitioner’s basis
of the change of his name is that he intends his first name compatible with the
sex he thought he transformed himself into thru surgery. The Court says that
his true name does not prejudice him at all, and no law allows the change of
entry in the birth certificate as to sex on the ground of sex reassignment.
There is no law authorizes the change of entry as of sex and first name
through the intervention of sex reassignment surgery. Article 376 of the Civil
Code as amended by RA 9048 (Clerical Error Law), together with Article 412 of
the same Code, change of name or sex in the birth certificate is allowed by the
courts so long as clerical or typographical errors are involved.