Lasanas vs. People

A person who contracts a second marriage without first obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage void ab initio is criminally liable for bigamy, because parties cannot assume the nullity of their marriage for purposes of remarriage without judicial declaration, and the nullity of the second marriage is not a defense.

On February 16, 1968, Noel Lasanas and Socorro Patingo were married in a civil ceremony by a municipal judge without a marriage license or affidavit of cohabitation. They ratified this union in a religious ceremony on August 27, 1980, also without a marriage license. The couple separated de facto in 1982. On December 27, 1993, Lasanas contracted a second marriage with Josefa Eslaban, representing himself as single. In 1996, he filed a civil action for annulment of his first marriage, which was dismissed in 1998 with the court declaring the first marriage valid and subsisting.

• First Marriage and Ratification: On February 16, 1968, petitioner Noel Lasanas and Socorro Patingo were married in a civil ceremony solemnized by Judge Carlos B. Salazar of the Municipal Trial Court of San Miguel, Iloilo, without a marriage license or affidavit of cohabitation. On August 27, 1980, they underwent a ratificatory religious ceremony before Fr. Rodolfo Tamayo at the San Jose Church in Iloilo City, likewise without a marriage license or affidavit of cohabitation.
• Separation and Second Marriage: The couple separated de facto in 1982 due to irreconcilable differences. On December 27, 1993, Lasanas contracted marriage with Josefa Eslaban in a religious ceremony at Sta. Maria Church in Iloilo City, declaring his civil status as single on the marriage certificate.
• Civil Action for Annulment: On July 26, 1996, Lasanas filed a complaint for annulment of his marriage to Socorro in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 39, Iloilo City, alleging fraud, psychological incompatibility, and her infidelity. In his complaint, he admitted the existence of the 1968 marriage.
• Criminal Charge: On October 20, 1998, an Information for bigamy was filed against Lasanas in the RTC, Branch 38, Iloilo City, docketed as Criminal Case No. 49808, alleging he contracted the second marriage without the first having been dissolved or annulled.
• Civil Judgment: On November 24, 1998, RTC Branch 39 dismissed the annulment complaint and declared the marriage between Lasanas and Socorro valid and legal, ordering Lasanas to pay monthly support of ₱3,000.00.
• Criminal Trial: Lasanas pleaded not guilty to the bigamy charge. The RTC convicted him on October 30, 2000, imposing an indeterminate sentence of two years and four months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum.

• Inapplicability of Article 40: Petitioner argued that Article 40 of the Family Code, requiring a judicial declaration of nullity before remarriage, is a civil law provision inapplicable to criminal prosecutions for bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Invalidity of Second Marriage: Petitioner maintained that the second marriage was void ab initio under Articles 52 and 53 of the Family Code for lack of a recorded judgment of nullity of the first marriage, and thus an essential element of bigamy—that the second marriage has all the essential requisites for validity—was absent.
• Good Faith Defense: Petitioner asserted that he acted in good faith and without criminal intent, harboring an honest belief that no judicial declaration of nullity was required for a void marriage before contracting a subsequent marriage, which should relieve him of criminal liability.

• Presence of Elements: Respondent countered that all elements of bigamy were established: a valid first marriage subsisting at the time of the second marriage, and the contracting of a second marriage without the first having been judicially declared null.
• Abandonment of Old Jurisprudence: Respondent argued that petitioner's reliance on People v. Mendoza and People v. Aragon—which held that no judicial declaration was needed for void marriages—was misplaced, as these cases had been abandoned by subsequent jurisprudence (Relova v. Landico, Wiegel v. Sempio-Diy) and superseded by Article 40 of the Family Code.
• Good Faith Not a Defense: Respondent maintained that good faith is not a defense in bigamy, citing Mañozca v. Domagas.

• Applicability of Article 40: Whether Article 40 of the Family Code, requiring a judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage before remarriage, applies in a criminal prosecution for bigamy.
• Validity of Subsequent Marriage: Whether the fact that the second marriage is void ab initio negates criminal liability for bigamy.
• Good Faith: Whether good faith and lack of criminal intent constitute valid defenses to a charge of bigamy.

• Applicability of Article 40: Article 40 of the Family Code applies to criminal proceedings for bigamy. The requirement for a judicial declaration of nullity before remarriage is mandatory to protect individuals from bigamy charges; until such declaration, the first marriage is presumed valid and subsisting. The crime of bigamy is consummated upon contracting the second marriage without the first having been judicially declared void.
• Validity of Subsequent Marriage: The nullity of the second marriage does not excuse criminal liability for bigamy. Article 349 penalizes the mere act of contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of a valid first marriage. To hold otherwise would allow individuals to deliberately contract flawed marriages to escape penal consequences.
• Good Faith: Good faith and lack of criminal intent are not defenses in bigamy. The petitioner filed for annulment only after contracting the second marriage, and the civil court's dismissal of that action confirmed the validity of the first marriage, negating any claim of good faith.

• Judicial Declaration of Nullity as Prerequisite — Under Article 40 of the Family Code, the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage solely on the basis of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. Parties cannot unilaterally assume the nullity of their marriage; the presumption of validity persists until a competent court declares otherwise.
• Elements of Bigamy — The crime of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code requires: (1) a legal marriage; (2) the marriage has not been legally dissolved or the absent spouse presumed dead; (3) contracting a second or subsequent marriage; and (4) the second marriage has all the essential requisites for validity (formal validity).
• Void Subsequent Marriage Not a Defense — A marriage contracted during the subsistence of a valid prior marriage is automatically void, but this nullity does not per se avoid criminal liability for bigamy. The law penalizes the act of contracting the subsequent marriage itself.
• Good Faith Irrelevant — Good faith or honest belief in the invalidity of the first marriage is not an absolutory cause in bigamy.

• "Any person who contracts a second marriage without first having a judicial declaration of the nullity of his or her first marriage, albeit on its face void and in existent for lack of a marriage license, is guilty of bigamy as defined and penalized by Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code." — Opening statement establishing the ratio decidendi.
• "The Family Code has settled once and for all the conflicting jurisprudence on the matter. A declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage is now explicitly required either as a cause of action or a ground for defense." — Explaining the mandatory nature of Article 40.
• "Parties to the marriage should not be allowed to assume that their marriage is void even if such be the fact but must first secure a judicial declaration of the nullity of their marriage before they can be allowed to marry again." — Rationale for protecting parties from bigamy charges.
• "What makes a person criminally liable for bigamy... is when he contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage." — Defining the gravamen of the offense.
• "There is therefore a recognition written into the law itself that such a marriage, although void ab initio, may still produce legal consequences. Among these legal consequences is incurring criminal liability for bigamy." — Rejecting the defense that the second marriage's nullity avoids criminal liability.

• Teves v. People, G.R. No. 188775, August 24, 2011 — Controlling precedent establishing that Article 40 of the Family Code requires a judicial declaration of nullity before remarriage to avoid bigamy liability.
• Tenebro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150758, February 18, 2004 — Controlling precedent holding that the nullity of the second marriage is not a defense in bigamy; the crime is consummated by the act of contracting the marriage during the subsistence of the first.
• Nollora, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 191425, September 7, 2011 — Followed; held that one cannot impugn the validity of the second marriage to escape criminal liability for bigamy.
• People v. Odtuhan, G.R. No. 191566, July 17, 2013 — Cited for the definition of bigamy liability as contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage.
• Mañozca v. Domagas, 248 SCRA 625 — Cited for the principle that good faith is not a defense in bigamy.
• People v. Mendoza, 95 Phil. 845 and People v. Aragon, 100 Phil. 1033 — Distinguished/Overruled; old doctrine that no judicial declaration was needed for void marriages abandoned in light of Article 40 of the Family Code.

• Article 349, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes bigamy; imposes prision mayor for contracting a second marriage before the former marriage is legally dissolved or the absent spouse declared presumptively dead.
• Article 40, Family Code — Mandates that the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage only on the basis of a final judgment declaring such marriage void.
• Articles 52 and 53, Family Code — Provisions cited by petitioner regarding recording of judgments; held inapplicable as a defense because the petitioner failed to secure any judgment of nullity prior to the second marriage.
• Article 64(1), Revised Penal Code — Applied for determining the proper penalty (medium period of prision mayor in the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances).

Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno (Chief Justice), Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Bienvenido L. Reyes.