Tenebro vs. CA

VERONICO TENEBRO, petitioner
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondent.

G.R. No. 150758
February 18, 2004

FACTS:

Tenebro married Ancajas (complainant) on April 10, 1990. On 1991, Tenebro informed Ancajas that he was previously married to a certain Villareyes on November 10, 1986. Invoking this previous marriage, Tenebro left Ancajas stating that he wanted to cohabit with Villareyes.

Subsequently, on January 25,1993, Tenebro again contracted another marriage with Villegas. When Ancajas learned of this third marriage, she then filed a criminal complaint for bigamy against Tenebro.

During trial, Tenebro denied that he and Villareyes were validly married to each other claiming that no marriage ceremony took place to solemnize their union. He alleged that he only signed a marriage contract merely to enable her to get the allotment from his office in connection with his work as a seaman. He further avers that there was no record of his marriage with Villareyes.

On November 10, 1997, the RTC found Tenebro guilty for the crime of bigamy. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. In his petition for review to the SC, Tenebro presents a two-tiered defense, in which he (1) denies the existence of his first marriage to Villareyes, and (2) argues that the declaration of the nullity of the second marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity, which is an alleged indicator that his marriage to Ancajas lacks the essential requisites for validity, retroacts to the date on which the second marriage was celebrated. Hence, petitioner argues that all four of the elements of the crime of bigamy are absent, and prays for his acquittal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Tenebro may still be convicted for the crime of bigamy despite the subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the second marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity?

HELD:

No, the subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity does not retroact to the date of the celebration of the marriage insofar as the Philippines’ penal laws are concerned. As such, an individual who contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage is criminally liable for bigamy, notwithstanding the subsequent declaration that the second marriage is void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity.

Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code criminalizes “any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings”. A plain reading of the law, therefore, would indicate that the provision penalizes the mere act of contracting a second or a subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage.

Thus, as soon as the second marriage to Ancajas was celebrated on April 10, 1990, during the subsistence of the valid first marriage, the crime of bigamy had already been consummated. To our mind, there is no cogent reason for distinguishing between a subsequent marriage that is null and void purely because it is a second or subsequent marriage, and a subsequent marriage that is null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity, at least insofar as criminal liability for bigamy is concerned. The State’s penal laws protecting the institution of marriage are in recognition of the sacrosanct character of this special contract between spouses, and punish an individual’s deliberate disregard of the permanent character of the special bond between spouses, which petitioner has undoubtedly done.