 Example of concealing or

Title Twelve abandoning: A mother who leaves her child at

CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS the door of an orphanage.
 A physician or surgeon or public
Chapter One. SIMULATION OF BIRTHS AND USURPATION officer, who cooperates in the execution of these
OF CIVIL STATUS crimes, is also liable if he acts in violation of the
duties of his profession or office.
Article 347. Simulation of births, substitution of one
child for another, and concealment or
abandonment of a legitimate child
Article 348. Usurpation of civil status People vs. Sangalang

The Sangalang spouses together with Gloria and Bienvenido

Chapter Two – ILLEGAL MARRIAGES
were charged of the crime of simulation of birth. The
information alleged that a child was furnished by Gloria to
Article 349. Bigamy the Sangalangs. Accused Bienvenido registered the birth of
Article 350. Marriage contracted against provisions of said child in the local civil registrar by supplying to said
laws office the necessary information required so that a birth
Article 351. Premature marriages certificate would be issued. He named the Sangalangs as
Article 352. Performance of illegal marriage ceremony the child’s parents. A birth certificate was hence issued.
Information did not contain any specific allegation as to
what the spouses did, except that they had conspired with
Article 347. Simulation of births, substitution Gloria and Bienvenido.
of one child for another, and concealment or
HELD: In the crime of simulation of births, it must be
abandonment of a legitimate child. shown that the “pretending parents” have registered or
caused in the registration of the child as their own with the
Acts punishable: Registry of Births, or that in doing so they were motivated
by a desire to cause the loss of any trace as to the child’s
1. Simulation of births; true filiation to his prejudice.
2. Substitution of one child for another;
In the instant case, SC found no evidence to sport the
3. Concealing or abandoning any legitimate finding of TC that the registration was effected by the
child with intent to cause such child to lose its Sangalangs. As the evidence would show, it was their
civil status. daughter Alicia (not Bienvenido, but still not the spouses)
who had a hand in the registration of the child).
Elements:

a. the child must be Article 348. Usurpation of civil status

legitimate;
b. the offender conceals or
abandons such child; and
c. the offender has the
intent to cause such child to lose its civil
status.
 The object of the crime is the
creation of false, or the causing of the loss of,
civil status.
 Example of simulation of birth:
a woman pretends to be pregnant when in fact
she is not, and on the day of the supposed
delivery, takes the child of another as her own.
 The fact that the child will be
benefited by the simulation of birth is not a
defense
 Example of substituting one
child for another: A and B both gave birth on
the same day. The nurse in the hospital
exchanges the children of A and B in the nursery.
 Abandon – leaving a child in a place
where other people may find it, causing the child
to lose its status.
 Committed when a person usurps
the civil status of another, by assuming the
filiation, or the parental or conjugal rights of
another.
 The term ‘civil status’ includes one’s
public station, or the rights, duties, capacities
and incapacities which determine a person to a
given classs.
 Usurpation of profession may be
punished under this article.
 There must be intent to enjoy the
rights arising from the civil status of another,
otherwise the case will be considered only as
using a fictitious name, or as estafa, depending
on the facts of the case.
 The purpose of defrauding the
offended party or his heirs qualifies the crime.
Article 349. Bigamy
Elements:
1. Offender has been legally married;

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

1
2. 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 by means of a judgment rendered in a
proper proceedings, according to the Civil Code;
3. He contracts a second or subsequent
marriage;
4. The second or subsequent marriage has
all the essential requisites for validity.
 Nullity of the first marriage is not a
defense in a bigamy charge. There must be a
judicial declaration of the nullity of a previous
marriage before contracting the second marriage.
 Causes which may produce the
legal dissolution of the first marriage:
o Death of one of the
contracting parties
o Judicial declaration
annulling a void marriage
o Judicial declaration
annulling a voidable marriage
 Defense has the burden of proof of
dissolution of first marriage.
 For the present spouse to contract
a subsequent marriage, an absent spouse is
presumed dead if he has been absent for four
consecutive years and the spouse present had a
well-founded belief that he is already dead. In
case of disappearance where there is danger of
death, an absence of only two years will be
sufficient. However, a declaration of presumptive
death should first be obtained from the courts.
 The second marriage must have all
the requisites for validity were it not for the
existence of the first marriage.
 The second spouse is not
necessarily liable for the bigamy. If the second
husband or wife knew of the first marriage,
he/she is an accomplice in the crime of bigamy.
 The witness who falsely vouched
for the capacity of either of the contracting
parties is also an accomplice.
 Bigamy is not a private crime. It is
an offense against the State, not against the
second wife.
 A person convicted of bigamy may
still be prosecuted for concubinage.
People vs. Aragon
Aragon contracted a 2nd marriage while the first marriage
was still subsisting. Eventually the first wife died. He
contracted a third marriage. Aragon was charged of
bigamy.
HELD: A subsequent marriage contracted by any person
during the lifetime of his first spouse is illegal and void
from its performance, and no judicial decree is necessary
to establish its invalidity as distinguished from mere
annullable marriages. The second marriage is void, hence
the third marriage is valid.
Article 350. Marriage contracted against
provisions of laws
Elements:
1. Offender contracted marriage;
2. He knew at the time that -
a. The requirements of the
law were not complied with; or
b. The marriage was in
disregard of a legal impediment.
 If either of the contracting parties
obtains the consent of the other by means of
violence, intimidation or fraud, the maximum
period of the penalty shall be imposed.
 The offender must not be guilty of
bigamy, to be punishable under this article.
Lucio Morigo v People (2002)
FACTS: Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were
boardmates. After school year 1977-78 they lost
contact with each other. In 1984, Lucio Morigo was
surprised to receive a card from Lucia Barrete from
Singapore. The former replied and after an exchange of
letters, they became sweethearts. In 1986, Lucia
returned to the Philippines but left again for Canada to
work there. While in Canada, they maintained constant
communication. In 1990, Lucia came back to the
Philippines and proposed to Lucio to join her in
Canada. Both agreed to get married. On September 8,
1990, Lucia reported back to her work in Canada
leaving appellant Lucio behind. On August 19, 1991,
Lucia filed with the Ontario Court for divorce which
was granted on January 17, 1992. On October 4, 1992,
appellant Lucio Morigo married Maria Jececha
Lumbago. On September 21, 1993, accused filed a
complaint for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage
in the RTC. On October 19, 1993, Lucio was charged
with Bigamy and found guilty thereon.
HELD: The primordial issue should be whether
or not petitioner committed bigamy and if so, whether
his defense of good faith is valid. In Marbella-Bobis v.
Bobis, we laid down the elements of bigamy thus:
(1) the offender has been legally
married;
(2) the first marriage has not been
legally dissolved, or in case his or her spouse
is absent, the absent spouse
has not been judicially declared
presumptively dead;
(3) he contracts a subsequent
marriage; and
(4) the subsequent marriage would
have been valid had it not been for the existence of
the first. aDcTHE
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
2
 Applying the foregoing test to the instant
case, we note that the trial court found that there was
no actual marriage ceremony performed between Lucio
and Lucia by a solemnizing officer. Instead, what
transpired was a mere signing of the marriage contract
by the two, without the presence of a solemnizing
officer.
The first element of bigamy as a crime
requires that the accused must have been legally
married. But in this case, legally speaking, the
petitioner was never married to Lucia Barrete. Thus,
there is no first marriage to speak of. Under the
principle of retroactivity of a marriage being declared
void ab initio, the two were never married “from the
beginning.” The contract of marriage is null; it bears no
legal effect. Taking this argument to its logical
conclusion, for legal purposes, petitioner was not
married to Lucia at the time he contracted the
marriage with Maria Jececha. The existence and the
validity of the first marriage being an essential element
of the crime of bigamy, it is but logical that a
conviction for said offense cannot be sustained where
there is no first marriage to speak of. The petitioner,
must, perforce be acquitted of the instant charge.
Abunado v. People (2004)
FACTS: September 18, 1967 Salvador married
Narcisa Arceño at the Manila City Hall before Rev.
Pedro Tiangco. In 1988 Narcisa left for Japan to work
but returned to the Philippines in 1992, Narcisa found
Salvador in Quezon City cohabiting with Fe Corazon
Plato. She also discovered that on January 10, 1989,
Salvador contracted a second marriage with a certain
Zenaida Biñas. An annulment case was filed by Salvador
against Narcisa. A case for bigamy was filed by Narcisa
against Salvador and Zenaida.
Salvador admitted that he first married
Zenaida on December 24, 1955 before a municipal trial
court judge in Concepcion, Iloilo and has four children
with her prior to their separation in 1966. It appeared
however that there was no evidence of their 1955
marriage so he and Zenaida remarried on January 10,
1989, upon the request of their son for the purpose of
complying with the requirements for his commission in
the military. The trial court convicted petitioner
Salvador Abunado of bigamy.
HELD: Abunado claims that his petition for
annulment/declaration of nullity of marriage was a
prejudicial question, hence, the proceedings in the
bigamy case should have been suspended during the
pendency of the annulment case. Petitioner, in fact,
eventually obtained a judicial declaration of nullity of
his marriage to Narcisa on October 29, 1999. 15
The subsequent judicial declaration of the
nullity of the first marriage was immaterial because
prior to the declaration of nullity, the crime had
already been consummated. Moreover, petitioner's
assertion would only delay the prosecution of bigamy
cases considering that an accused could simply file a
petition to declare his previous marriage void and
invoke the pendency of that action as a prejudicial
question in the criminal case. We cannot allow that. 17
The outcome of the civil case for annulment
of petitioner's marriage to Narcisa had no bearing upon
the determination of petitioner's innocence or guilt in
the criminal case for bigamy, because all that is
required for the charge of bigamy to prosper is that the
first marriage be subsisting at the time the second
marriage is contracted.
Thus, under the law, a marriage, even one
which is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid until
declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding. In this
case, even if petitioner eventually obtained a
declaration that his first marriage was void ab initio,
the point is, both the first and the second marriage
were subsisting before the first marriage was annulled.
Diego v. Castillo (2004)
FACTS: On January 9, 1965, Lucena Escoto
contracted marriage with Jorge de Perio, Jr. The
couple were both Filipinos. In the marriage contract,
the accused used and adopted the name Crescencia
Escoto, with a civil status of single. In a document
dated February 15, 1978, denominated as a “Decree of
Divorce” purportedly issued by an American court,
Crescencia de Perio was granted a Divorce from Jorge.
Subsequently, Crescencia Escoto contracted marriage
with Manuel P. Diego. The marriage contract shows
that this time, the accused used and adopted the name
Lucena Escoto, again, with a civil status of single.
Later, a case for bigamy was filed against her by her
brother in law.
After trial of the criminal case for bigamy,
Judge Castillo promulgated a decision stating that the
main basis for the acquittal was good faith on the part
of the accused. Judge Castillo gave credence to the
defense of the accused that she acted without any
malicious intent. The evidence he averred gave
accused Lucena Escoto sufficient grounds to believe
that her previous marriage had been validly dissolved
by the divorce decree and that she was legally free to
contract the second marriage with Manuel P. Diego.
1. HELD: A careful study of the
disputed decision reveals that respondent Judge
had been less than circumspect in his study of the
law and jurisprudence applicable to the bigamy
case. In his comment, respondent Judge stated:
“That the accused married Manuel P. Diego in the
honest belief that she was free to do so by virtue
of the decree of divorce is a mistake of fact.”
This Court, in People v. Bitdu, carefully
distinguished between a mistake of fact, which could
be a basis for the defense of good faith in a bigamy
case, from a mistake of law, which does not excuse a
person, even a lay person, from liability. Bitdu held
that even if the accused, who had obtained a divorce
under the Mohammedan custom, honestly believed that
in contracting her second marriage she was not
committing any violation of the law, and that she had
no criminal intent, the same does not justify her act.
This Court further stated therein that with respect to
the contention that the accused acted in good faith in
contracting the second marriage, believing that she
had been validly divorced from her first husband, it is
sufficient to say that everyone is presumed to know the
law, and the fact that one does not know that his act
constitutes a violation of the law does not exempt him
from the consequences thereof.
Moreover, squarely applicable to the criminal
case for bigamy, is People v. Schneckenburger, where
it was held that the accused who secured a foreign
divorce, and later remarried in the Philippines, in the
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
3
belief that the foreign divorce was valid, is liable for
bigamy.

Article 351. Premature marriages

Persons liable:

1. A widow who is married within 301 days

from the date of the death of her husband, or
before having delivered if she is pregnant at the
time of his death;
2. A woman who, her marriage having been
annulled or dissolved, married before her delivery
or before the expiration of the period of 301 days
after the date of the legal separation.

 Reason behind the law: to prevent

doubtful paternity, because the woman might
have conceived and become pregnant by her
previous husband.
 The period of 301 days may be
disregarded if the first husband was impotent or
sterile.

Article 352. Performance of illegal marriage

ceremony

 Priests or ministers of any religious

denomination or sect, or civil authorities who
shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage
ceremony
 The offender must be authorized to
solemnize marriages. If the accused is not
authorized, he is liable under article 177
(usurpation of authority or official functions)
 Offender is punished under the
marriage law (there is such a law?!?).

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

4