Bonbon vs. People

A conviction for bigamy may stand even where the accused alleges the subsequent marriage is void for lack of a ceremony, provided the marriage certificate — a public document enjoying the presumption of regularity — is not rebutted by competent testimonial or documentary evidence; and the prescriptive period for bigamy runs from the discovery of the bigamous marriage, not from its registration, because the second marriage is generally held in secret.

Erwin Bonbon was legally married to Gemma Cunada on January 3, 1988, in Cagayan de Oro City. While that marriage remained subsisting and undissolved, he contracted two subsequent marriages: with Rizalina Marcos on June 18, 1994, and with Elizabeth Brua on February 1, 1999, the latter celebrated before the Municipal Mayor of Baungon, Bukidnon. The complaint for bigamy was initiated by Erwin's sisters, Cecile Bonbon Waga and Alice Bonbon-Ong, who discovered the multiple marriages only in 2020 while obtaining a Philippine Statistics Office certification as a requirement for processing their mother's Government Service Insurance System benefits. The case is prosecuted under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines and penalizes bigamy as a public crime.

Erwin Bonbon married Gemma Cunada on January 3, 1988, in Cagayan de Oro City. That marriage was never legally dissolved. Thereafter, Erwin contracted a second marriage with Rizalina Marcos on June 18, 1994, and a third marriage with Elizabeth Brua on February 1, 1999, the latter celebrated before the Municipal Mayor of Baungon, Bukidnon. Erwin and Elizabeth had two children together prior to their marriage: Mae Ann, born on July 1, 1996, and James Brian Bonbon, born on March 31, 1998.

The bigamous nature of Erwin's marriages was discovered only in 2020, when his sisters Cecile Bonbon Waga and Alice Bonbon-Ong obtained a certification from the Philippine Statistics Office as a requirement for processing their mother's Government Service Insurance System benefits. The certification revealed that Erwin's marriage to Elizabeth was already his third. Cecile and Alice thereafter filed a complaint for bigamy with the National Bureau of Investigation. The NBI issued a subpoena duces tecum to the PSA, which furnished three copies of Erwin's marriage certificates with the three different women. Neither Erwin nor Elizabeth appeared at the NBI office despite the subpoena issued to them; they only denied the allegations through a letter dated May 18, 2021.

At trial, the prosecution presented Cecile, who testified that their late mother Necitas had refused to give her blessings when Elizabeth's family sought consent, telling them that Erwin was already married. Cecile further recounted that sometime in 1998, Elizabeth and her late sister Marites asked her directly whether Erwin was married, and she confirmed that he was married to Gemma and that they had a child. None of Erwin's family attended the wedding to Elizabeth. Alice corroborated Cecile's testimony. Atty. Chemene Nacua, an NBI Investigation Agent, testified regarding the investigation and the subpoena duces tecum issued to the PSA.

For his defense, Erwin denied intending to marry Elizabeth, claiming that his mother and siblings prodded him into it because they feared losing his children with Elizabeth. He asserted that his family concealed his previous marriage from Elizabeth and arranged a "secret" civil wedding in Bukidnon. He testified that on the day of the alleged marriage, February 1, 1999, he was told by his mother to go to the mayor's office in Libona, Bukidnon, where the Municipal Mayor was absent and a secretary merely handed them a blank marriage contract to sign. No ceremony took place, according to Erwin. Elizabeth corroborated that she had no knowledge of Erwin's previous marriages at the time of their wedding and that she agreed to the secret civil wedding upon the instruction of Erwin's mother. She discovered Erwin's prior marriages only sometime in 2012 when she inquired with the PSA. She felt betrayed and separated from Erwin thereafter. Both Erwin and Elizabeth asserted that the case was filed by his sisters to force them to vacate the Bonbon compound.

The RTC found both guilty beyond reasonable doubt, convicting Erwin as principal and Elizabeth as accomplice. The RTC upheld the presumption of regularity of the marriage certificate as a public document and refused to credit Erwin's claim that no ceremony occurred. Only Erwin appealed to the CA, which affirmed the RTC's factual and legal conclusions and further held that even assuming the marriage to Elizabeth was void, liability for bigamy still exists so long as the first marriage was subsisting when the second was celebrated.

• Prescription: Petitioner argued that the prosecution for bigamy was barred by prescription, the bigamous marriage having been celebrated in 1999 and the complaint filed only in 2022, well beyond the prescriptive period.
• Invalidity of the Subsequent Marriage: Petitioner maintained that his marriage to Elizabeth was void ab initio for lack of a marriage ceremony, alleging that they merely signed a blank marriage contract before a secretary without the solemnizing officer present and without any ceremony taking place.
• Lack of Criminal Intent: Petitioner contended that he never intended to marry Elizabeth, claiming that his mother and siblings orchestrated the marriage and concealed his previous marital status from him and from Elizabeth.

• Prescription: Whether the prosecution for bigamy is barred by prescription given that the bigamous marriage was celebrated in 1999 but the complaint was filed only in 2022.
• Validity of the Subsequent Marriage: Whether the subsequent marriage to Elizabeth has all the essential requisites for validity despite petitioner's claim that no marriage ceremony took place.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether petitioner's guilt for bigamy was established beyond reasonable doubt.

• Prescription: No. Prescription does not bar the action. The prescriptive period for bigamy is counted from the discovery of the bigamous marriage, not from its registration, because the second marriage is generally held in secret.
• Validity of the Subsequent Marriage: Yes. The subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. The marriage certificate, a public document, enjoys the presumption of regularity, which petitioner failed to rebut with competent evidence.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Yes. All four elements of bigamy were established beyond reasonable doubt, the first three being undisputed and the fourth satisfied by the unrebutted presumption of regularity of the marriage certificate and marriage license.

• Prescription: The Court applied the rule in Sermonia vs. Court of Appeals that constructive notice cannot apply in the crime of bigamy. The prescriptive period is counted not from the registration of the bigamous marriage but from its discovery, because the second marriage is generally held in secret, rendering discovery difficult and rendering prosecution almost impossible if constructive notice were applied. Here, the bigamous marriage was celebrated in Bukidnon, away from Erwin and his first wife's residence in Misamis Oriental, and none of the family members attended the civil marriage ceremony. The private complainants discovered the marriage only in 2020 and filed the complaint in 2022. Erwin failed to prove that the private complainants had actual knowledge of the bigamous marriage prior to 2020. While Cecile may have been aware of the marriage arrangement, no similar allegation was made as to Alice. The burden of proving actual knowledge on the part of the private complainants — which would render the prosecution barred by prescription — shifted to Erwin once the prosecution proved the elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt, and he failed to discharge that burden.

• Validity of the Subsequent Marriage: The Court agreed with the RTC and CA that Erwin's marriage to Elizabeth had all the essential requisites for validity. Erwin's assertion that no ceremony took place was a bare allegation unsupported by any corroborating evidence — not even from his co-accused Elizabeth. The Certificate of Marriage dated February 1999, signed by both Erwin and Elizabeth, indicated that they appeared before Municipal Mayor Rogelio S. Lago on their own free will to take each other as husband and wife, in the presence of witnesses. The solemnizing officer certified that the parties had complied with the requisite marriage license, bearing number 2552837, issued January 29, 1999. Under Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the marriage certificate, being a public document, is presumed prima facie correct as evidence of the facts stated therein. While the rule now stands that a void subsequent marriage is a valid defense in a criminal prosecution for bigamy even without a judicial declaration of nullity, the accused cannot rely on mere allegations but must present testimonial or documentary evidence to support the claim. This is particularly so when the validity of the marriage is supported by public documents enjoying the presumption of regularity. Erwin failed to present any of the witnesses who appeared on the marriage certificate to substantiate his claim that no ceremony occurred. The use of the evidentiary presumption was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt because the existence and authenticity of the public documents were admitted by the defense.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The first three elements of bigamy were undisputed and admitted by Erwin himself: he was legally married to Gemma Cunada on January 3, 1988; that marriage was never legally dissolved; and he contracted subsequent marriages with Rizalina Marcos in 1994 and Elizabeth in 1999. The fourth element — that the subsequent marriage had all the essential requisites for validity — was satisfied by the unrebutted presumption of regularity of the marriage certificate and marriage license. Factual findings of the trial court, sustained by the CA, carry great weight and respect, and the Court found no reason to deviate from this rule. The penalty imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA was likewise affirmed as proper.

• Presumption of Regularity of Public Documents — A public document, such as a marriage certificate, is presumed prima facie correct and serves as evidence of the facts stated therein under Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. In this case, the marriage certificate and marriage license enjoyed the presumption of regularity, and because the defense admitted their existence and authenticity but failed to present corroborating evidence to rebut the presumption, the facts stated therein — including the holding of a valid marriage ceremony — were deemed established beyond reasonable doubt.

• Prescription in Bigamy — Discovery Rule — The prescriptive period for the crime of bigamy is counted from the discovery of the bigamous marriage, not from its registration. The rule on constructive notice cannot apply in bigamy because the second marriage is generally held in secret, rendering discovery difficult. Application of constructive notice would render prosecution of violators almost impossible. In this case, because the bigamous marriage was celebrated away from the first wife's residence and none of the family members attended the ceremony, and because the private complainants discovered the marriage only in 2020, the complaint filed in 2022 was not barred by prescription.

• Elements of Bigamy (Article 349, Revised Penal Code) — The prosecution must prove: (a) that the offender has been legally married; (b) that the first marriage has not been legally dissolved, or in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code; (c) that he or she contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and (d) that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. All four elements were established in this case.

• Void Marriage as Defense in Bigamy — A void subsequent marriage is a valid defense in a criminal prosecution for bigamy even without a judicial declaration of nullity. However, the accused cannot rely on mere allegations of invalidity but must present testimonial or documentary evidence to support the claim, particularly when the marriage is supported by public documents enjoying the presumption of regularity. In this case, Erwin's bare allegation that no ceremony took place, uncorroborated even by his co-accused, was insufficient to overcome the presumption.

• "While the rule now stands that a void subsequent marriage is a valid defense in a criminal prosecution for Bigamy even without a judicial declaration of nullity, nonetheless, the accused still cannot rely on mere allegations, but must present testimonial or documentary evidence to support the same." — This passage articulates the evidentiary burden placed on an accused who invokes the invalidity of the subsequent marriage as a defense in bigamy, requiring more than bare assertions when public documents support the marriage's validity.

• "the prescriptive period for the offense should be counted not from the registration of the bigamous marriage but from the discovery thereof. This is because in Bigamy, the second marriage is generally held in secret which renders the discovery thereof difficult." — This formulation states the ratio decidendi on the prescription issue, explaining why constructive notice is inapplicable in bigamy and why the discovery rule governs the prescriptive period.

• "The use of an evidentiary presumption in this case is sufficient to establish Erwin's guilt beyond reasonable doubt as the existence and authenticity of the public documents were admitted by the defense." — This passage defines how the presumption of regularity of public documents can independently satisfy the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt when the defense admits the documents' existence and authenticity but fails to rebut their contents.

• Sermonia vs. Court of Appeals, 303 Phil. 165 (1994) — Controlling precedent on the prescription issue. The Court followed its holding that constructive notice cannot apply in the crime of bigamy and that the prescriptive period should be counted from discovery, not from registration, of the bigamous marriage.

• Pulido vs. People, 908 Phil. 573 (2021) — Cited for the elements of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code and for the rule that a void subsequent marriage is a valid defense in a criminal prosecution for bigamy even without a judicial declaration of nullity.

• Santos vs. People, G.R. No. 261666, January 24, 2024 — Cited for the proposition that the presumption of regularity of the marriage certificate, when unrebutted, is sufficient to establish the validity of the marriage and, consequently, the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

• People vs. Ganguso, 591 Phil. 508 (2008) — Cited in relation to the burden of proof shifting to the accused to substantiate the defense of actual knowledge on the part of private complainants for purposes of prescription.

• Minoru Fujiki vs. Marinay, et al., 712 Phil. 524 (2013) — Cited for the characterization of bigamy as a public crime.

• CICL XXX vs. People, 899 Phil. 467 (2021) — Cited for the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and that factual findings of the trial court, when sustained by the CA, carry great weight and respect.

• Article 349, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the crime of bigamy. The Court applied this provision by requiring proof of its four elements: (a) legal marriage existing; (b) first marriage not legally dissolved or absent spouse not yet presumptively dead; (c) contracting a second or subsequent marriage; and (d) the second or subsequent marriage having all essential requisites for validity.

• Articles 90-91, Revised Penal Code — Govern prescription of crimes. The Court applied these provisions in conjunction with the discovery rule from Sermonia vs. Court of Appeals to hold that the prescriptive period for bigamy runs from discovery of the bigamous marriage, not from its registration.

• Section 44, Rule 130, Rules of Court — Provides that a public document is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. The Court applied this provision to the marriage certificate, holding that it enjoyed the presumption of regularity and was sufficient to establish the validity of the marriage and the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt when unrebutted.

Inting, Dimaampao, and Singh, JJ., concurred. Caguioa (Chairperson), J., filed a separate concurring opinion, the text of which is not included in the provided source material.