1

VICTORIA S. JARILLO
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
RA 4103 (INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW)

 Victoria Jarillo and Rafael Alocillo were married in a civil wedding ceremony.
 On May 4, 1975, Victoria Jarillo and Rafael Alocillo again celebrated marriage in a church
wedding ceremony before Rev. Angel Resultay in San Carlos City, Pangasinan.
 Appellant Victoria Jarillo thereafter contracted a subsequent marriage with Emmanuel Ebora
Santos Uy, at the City Court of Pasay City, Branch 1, before then Hon. Judge Nicanor Cruz on
November 26, 1979.
 Emmanuel Uy filed against the appellant Civil Case No. 99-93582 for annulment of marriage
before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
 Jarillo was charged with bigamy before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City.
 Court a quo finds accused Victoria Soriano Jarillo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of BIGAMY.
 Accordingly, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of SIX (6)
YEARS of prision correccional, as minimum, to TEN (10) YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum.
 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 toto.
 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.
 In the meantime, the RTC of Makati City, Branch 140, rendered a Decision dated March 28,
2003, declaring petitioner’s 1974 and 1975 marriages to Alocillo null and void ab initio on the
ground of Alocillo’s psychological incapacity.
 Said decision became final and executory on July 9, 2003. In her motion for reconsideration,
petitioner invoked said declaration of nullity as a ground for the reversal of her conviction.
 However, in its Resolution dated July 8, 2004, the CA, citing Tenebro v. Court of
Appeals,4 denied reconsideration.

ISSUE: THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT ACQUITTING THE
PETITIONER BUT IMPOSED AN ERRONEOUS PENALTY UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE AND
THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW.

HELD:

Finally, petitioner avers that the RTC and the CA imposed an erroneous penalty under the Revised Penal
Code. Again, petitioner is mistaken.

The Indeterminate Sentence Law provides that the accused shall be sentenced to an indeterminate
penalty, the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be
properly imposed under the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum of which shall be within the range of
the penalty next lower than that prescribed by the Code for the offense, without first considering any
modifying circumstance attendant to the commission of the crime. The Indeterminate Sentence Law
leaves it entirely within the sound discretion of the court to determine the minimum penalty, as long as it is
anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower without any reference to the periods into which it
might be subdivided. The modifying circumstances are considered only in the imposition of the maximum
term of the indeterminate sentence.16

Applying the foregoing rule, it is clear that the penalty imposed on petitioner is proper. Under Article 349
of the Revised Penal Code, the imposable penalty for bigamy is prision mayor. The penalty next lower is
prision correccional, which ranges from 6 months and 1 day to 6 years. The minimum penalty of six years
imposed by the trial court is, therefore, correct as it is still within the duration of prision correccional. There
being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances proven in this case, the prescribed penalty of prision
mayor should be imposed in its medium period, which is from 8 years and 1 day to 10 years. Again, the
trial court correctly imposed a maximum penalty of 10 years.

However, for humanitarian purposes, and considering that petitioner’s marriage to Alocillo has after all
been declared by final judgment17 to be void ab initio on account of the latter’s psychological incapacity,
by reason of which, petitioner was subjected to manipulative abuse, the Court deems it proper to reduce
the penalty imposed by the lower courts. Thus, petitioner should be sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
 2

penalty of imprisonment from Two (2) years, Four (4) months and One (1) day of prision correccional, as
minimum, to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum.