Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40320:g-r-no-137110-august-1,-2000-vincent-paul-g-mercado-v-consuelo-tan&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:38:27+00:00

Document:
VINCENT PAUL G. MERCADO a.k.a. VINCENT G. MERCADO, Petitioner, v. CONSUELO TAN, Respondent.
A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is necessary before a subsequent one can be legally contracted. One who enters into a subsequent marriage without first obtaining such judicial declaration is guilty of bigamy. This principle applies even if the earlier union is characterized by statute as "void" .
"WHEREFORE, finding the guilt of accused Dr. Vincent Paul G. Mercado a.k.a. Dr. Vincent G. Mercado of the crime of Bigamy punishable under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code to have been proven beyond reasonable doubt, [the court hereby renders] judgment imposing upon him a prison term of three (3) years, four (4) months and fifteen (15) days of prision correccional, as minimum of his indeterminate sentence, to eight (8) years and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor, as maximum, plus accessory penalties provided by law.
"From the evidence adduced by the parties, there is no dispute that accused Dr. Vincent Mercado and complainant Ma. Consuelo Tan got married on June 27, 1991 before MTCC-Bacolod City Br. 7 Judge Gorgonio J. Ibañez [by reason of] which a Marriage Contract was duly executed and signed by the parties, As entered in said document, the status of accused was ‘single’. There is no dispute either that at the time of the celebration of the wedding with complainant, Accused was actually a married man, having been in lawful wedlock with Ma. Thelma Oliva in a marriage ceremony solemnized on April 10, 1976 by Judge Leonardo B. Cañares, CFI-Br. XIV, Cebu City per Marriage Certificate issued in connection therewith, which matrimony was further blessed by Rev. Father Arthur Baur on October 10, 1976 in religious rites at the Sacred Heart Church, Cebu City. In the same manner, the civil marriage between accused and complainant was confirmed in a church ceremony on June 29, 1991 officiated by Msgr. Victorino A. Rivas, Judicial Vicar, Diocese of Bacolod City. Both marriages were consummated when out of the first consortium, Ma. Thelma Oliva bore accused two children, while a child, Vincent Paul, Jr. was sired by accused with complainant Ma. Consuelo Tan.
"On October 5, 1992, a letter-complaint for bigamy was filed by complainant through counsel with the City Prosecutor of Bacolod City, which eventually resulted [in] the institution of the present case before this Court against said accused, Dr. Vincent G. Mercado, on March 1, 1993 in an Information dated January 22, 1993.
"Accused is charged with bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code for having contracted a second marriage with herein complainant Ma. Consuelo Tan on June 27, 1991 when at that time he was previously united in lawful marriage with Ma. Thelma V. Oliva on April 10, 1976 at Cebu City, without said first marriage having been legally dissolved. As shown by the evidence and admitted by accused, all the essential elements of the crime are present, namely: (1) that the offender has been previously legally married; (2) that the first marriage has not been legally dissolved or in case the spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code; (3) that he contract[ed] a second or subsequent marriage; and (4) that the second or subsequent marriage ha[d] all the essential requisites for validity. . . .
"While acknowledging the existence of the two marriage[s], Accused posited the defense that his previous marriage ha[d] been judicially declared null and void and that the private complainant had knowledge of the first marriage of accused.
Whether or not the element of previous legal marriage is present in order to convict petitioner.
Whether or not a liberal interpretation in favor of petitioner of Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code punishing bigamy, in relation to Articles 36 and 40 of the Family Code, negates the guilt of petitioner.
The Petition is not meritorious.
When the Information was filed on January 22, 1993, all the elements of bigamy were present. It is undisputed that petitioner married Thelma G. Oliva on April 10, 1976 in Cebu City. While that marriage was still subsisting, he contracted a second marriage, this time with Respondent Ma. Consuelo Tan who subsequently filed the Complaint for bigamy.
Respondent, on the other hand, admits that the first marriage was declared null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code, but she points out that that declaration came only after the Information had been filed. Hence, by then, the crime had already been consummated. She argues that a judicial declaration of nullity of a void previous marriage must be obtained before a person can marry for a subsequent time.
Subsequently, in Yap v. CA, 16 the Court reverted to the ruling in People v. Mendoza, holding that there was no need for such declaration of nullity.
That he subsequently obtained a judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage was immaterial. To repeat, the crime had already been consummated by then. Moreover, his view effectively encourages delay in the prosecution of bigamy cases; 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.
Under the circumstances of the present case, he is guilty of the charge against him.
"We are convinced from the totality of the evidence presented in this case that Consuelo Tan is not the innocent victim that she claims to be; she was well aware of the existence of the previous marriage when she contracted matrimony with Dr. Mercado. The testimonies of the defense witnesses prove this, and we find no reason to doubt said testimonies.
Melo, Purisima and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
At the pith of the controversy is the defense of the absolute nullity of a previous marriage in an indictment for bigamy. The majority opinion, penned by my esteemed brother, Mr. Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, enunciates that it is only a judicially decreed prior void marriage which can constitute a defense against the criminal charge.
The civil law rule stated in Article 40 of the Family Code is a given but I have strong reservations on its application beyond what appears to be its expressed context. The subject of the instant petition is a criminal prosecution, not a civil case, and the ponencia affirms the conviction of petitioner Vincent Paul G. Mercado for bigamy.
"ARTICLE 349.	Bigamy. — The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon 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.
Accordingly, I vote to grant the petition.
1.	Penned by J. Salome A. Montoya, Division chairman; with the concurrence of JJ Conchita Carpio Morales and Bernardo P. Abesamis, members.
2.	RTC Decision, pp. 16-17; rollo, pp. 136-137. This was written by Judge Edgar G. Garvilles.
3.	CA Decision, pp. 2-4; rollo, pp. 45-47.
4.	Ibid., p. 6; rollo, p. 13.
5.	The case was deemed submitted for resolution on May 26, 2000, upon receipt by this Court of the OSG Memorandum signed by Sol. Gen. Ricardo P. Galvez, Asst. Sol. Gen. Mariano M. Martinez and Sol. Jesus P. Castelo. Respondent’s Memorandum, which was signed by Atty. Julius C. Baldado, was received on November 11, 1999; while petitioner’s Memorandum, signed by Attys. Bernard B. Lopez and Maritoni Z. Liwanag, had been filed earlier on September 30, 1999.
6.	Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 5; rollo, p. 215.
7.	Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book Two, 13th ed. (1993), p. 828.
8.	Citing Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines: Commentaries and Jurisprudence, Vol. I, p. 265.
9.	Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book Two, 12th ed. (1981), p. 907.
10.	Domingo v. CA, 226 SCRA 572, September 17, 1993, per Romero, J.
11.	95 Phil. 845, September 28, 1954.
12.	100 Phil. 1033, February 28, 1957.
13.	37 SCRA 315, 326, January 30, 1971, per Zaldivar, J. Emphasis supplied. See also Gomez v. Lipana, 33 SCRA 615, June 30, 1970.
14.	122 SCRA 525, 529, May 30, 1983; per Melencio-Herrera, J. Emphasis supplied.
15.	143 SCRA 499, August 19, 1986, per Paras, J. Emphasis supplied.
16.	145 SCRA 229, October 28, 1986.
17.	226 SCRA 572, September 17, 1993, per Romero, J., citing Sempio-Diy, Handbook of the Family Code of the Philippines, 1988, p. 46.
19.	People v. Mendoza, 95 Phil. 845, September 28, 1954, per Paras, CJ. See also People v. Aragon, 100 Phil. 1033, 1034-1035, February 28, 1957, per Labrador, J.
20.	Sempio-Diy, Handbook on the Family Code of the Philippines, 1995 ed., p. 56.
21.	211 SCRA 6, 11, July 3, 1992, per curiam.
22.	Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Book Two, 13th ed. (1993), p. 829. Emphasis supplied. Petitioner had cited the statement of Justice Reyes that "if the first marriage is void from the beginning, it is a defense in a bigamy charge." This statement, however, appeared in the 1981 edition of Reyes’ book, before the enactment of the Family Code.
23.	Respondent’s Memorandum, p. 16; rollo, p. 259.
24.	Lagandaon v. Court of Appeals, 290 SCRA 330, May 21 1998; Dio v. Concepcion, 296 SCRA 579, September 25, 1998.
25.	CA Decision, pp. 7-9; rollo, pp. 50-52.

References: v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.