Bigamy: a later declaration of nullity does not erase the crime
Summary
This landmark Supreme Court case resolved the novel issue of whether subsequent judicial declaration of marriage nullity on psychological incapacity grounds affects criminal liability for bigamy. Veronico Tenebro contracted multiple marriages: first to Hilda Villareyes (1986), second to Leticia Ancajas (1990), and third to Nilda Villegas (1993). When prosecuted for bigamy by Ancajas, Tenebro defended by claiming the first marriage was invalid and that the subsequent nullity declaration of his second marriage retroacted to eliminate criminal liability. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected this defense, establishing that criminal liability for bigamy is determined at the time the second marriage is contracted, not by subsequent civil declarations. The Court emphasized that the crime is consummated upon celebrating the second marriage during subsistence of a valid first marriage, regardless of later nullity declarations. This decision protects the sanctity of marriage while preventing circumvention of criminal liability through subsequent civil proceedings. The conviction was upheld with the prescribed penalty under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Focus of dispute
Whether subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on ground of psychological incapacity affects criminal liability for bigamy
Legal facts
Veronico Tenebro was previously married to Hilda Villareyes on November 10, 1986. On April 10, 1990, he contracted a second marriage with Leticia Ancajas before Judge Alfredo B. Perez, Jr. of the City Trial Court of Lapu-lapu City. On January 25, 1993, Tenebro contracted a third marriage with Nilda Villegas before Judge German Lee, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 15. When Ancajas learned of the third marriage, she filed a complaint for bigamy against Tenebro. The second marriage between Tenebro and Ancajas was subsequently declared null and void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity in a separate civil case.
Judgement and reasoning
Court of Appeals
Affirmed the decision of the trial court, finding petitioner guilty of bigamy. Motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of merit.
Regional Trial Court of Lapu-lapu City, Branch 54
Found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing him to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. The court found sufficient evidence to prove all elements of bigamy.
Supreme Court En Banc
Affirmed the conviction, holding that subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on ground of psychological incapacity does not retroact to date of celebration insofar as penal laws are concerned. The Court ruled that the crime of bigamy was already consummated when the second marriage was celebrated during the subsistence of the valid first marriage. All four elements of bigamy were proven: (1) legally married first to Villareyes, (2) first marriage not legally dissolved, (3) contracted second marriage with Ancajas, (4) second marriage had all essential requisites for validity. The declaration of nullity on psychological incapacity grounds does not affect criminal liability since the act of contracting the second marriage during subsistence of valid first marriage already constituted the crime.