Vitangcol v. People

G.R. No. 207406 (January 13, 2016)

Facts:

Norberto A. Vitangcol was charged with bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that on December 4, 1994, while still legally married to Gina M. Gaerlan, Norberto contracted a second marriage with Alice G. Eduardo-Vitangcol. The prosecution presented evidence of Norberto's first marriage to Gina, which was solemnized on July 17, 1987, as evidenced by a marriage contract registered with the National Statistics Office. Alice discovered Norberto's prior marriage after hearing rumors and subsequently filed a criminal complaint for bigamy against him.

During the trial, Norberto admitted to marrying Alice but claimed that he had a "fake marriage" with Gina, asserting that there was no valid marriage license for his first marriage. He presented a certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar of Imus, Cavite, stating that there was no record of the marriage license issued for his marriage to Gina. Norberto argued that the absence of a marriage license meant that the prosecution failed to prove the legality of his first marriage, and thus, the first element of bigamy was not established.

The prosecution countered that the existence of the marriage contract with Gina was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage, and that Norberto's first marriage had not been legally dissolved. The Regional Trial Court found Norberto guilty of bigamy, sentencing him to six years and one day to twelve years of imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of two years and four months to eight years and one day.

Norberto filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of his first marriage and that the legal dissolution of the first marriage was not an element of the crime of bigamy.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar proving the absence of a marriage license is sufficient to exculpate Norberto from the charge of bigamy.
2. Whether the requirement of a judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage is necessary for a conviction of bigamy.

Arguments:

• Petitioner (Norberto):

  • Argued that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of a valid first marriage due to the absence of a marriage license.
  • Claimed that the legal dissolution of the first marriage is not an element of bigamy as defined under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.
  • Asserted that any reasonable doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused.

• Respondent (Prosecution):

  • Contended that the marriage contract with Gina was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage, and that the first marriage had not been legally dissolved.
  • Argued that the second marriage was invalid due to the existence of the first marriage, regardless of the alleged absence of a marriage license.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Norberto for bigamy, emphasizing that all elements of the crime were present. The Court reasoned that the certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar did not categorically prove that no marriage license existed. The mere absence of a record does not equate to the absence of a marriage license, and the marriage contract itself was a positive piece of evidence indicating the existence of a valid marriage.

The Court reiterated the principle that a judicial declaration of nullity is required to establish the invalidity of a marriage. The ruling in Landicho v. Relova was cited, which established that parties cannot unilaterally declare their marriage void; only a competent court can do so. The Court concluded that Norberto's belief that his first marriage was invalid did not absolve him of liability for bigamy, as he had not sought a judicial declaration of nullity.

The Court modified the penalty under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, reducing the minimum sentence to six months and one day of prision correccional, while maintaining the maximum at eight years and one day of prision mayor.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

1. A judicial declaration of nullity is necessary to establish the invalidity of a marriage for the purposes of contracting a subsequent marriage.
2. The absence of a marriage license does not automatically invalidate a marriage; the existence of a marriage contract is sufficient evidence of a valid marriage unless proven otherwise.
3. The burden of proof lies with the accused to establish the nullity of a prior marriage when charged with bigamy.