1) Respondent was married to Socrates in 1976 but married Silverio in 1983 while still married to Socrates.
2) Respondent filed to annul her marriage to Socrates in 2003, after marrying Silverio.
3) The court ruled respondent was liable for bigamy as her marriage to Socrates had not been annulled at the time of her marriage to Silverio. A subsequent annulment does not change the fact that two marriages were occurring simultaneously.
1) Respondent was married to Socrates in 1976 but married Silverio in 1983 while still married to Socrates.
2) Respondent filed to annul her marriage to Socrates in 2003, after marrying Silverio.
3) The court ruled respondent was liable for bigamy as her marriage to Socrates had not been annulled at the time of her marriage to Silverio. A subsequent annulment does not change the fact that two marriages were occurring simultaneously.
1) Respondent was married to Socrates in 1976 but married Silverio in 1983 while still married to Socrates.
2) Respondent filed to annul her marriage to Socrates in 2003, after marrying Silverio.
3) The court ruled respondent was liable for bigamy as her marriage to Socrates had not been annulled at the time of her marriage to Silverio. A subsequent annulment does not change the fact that two marriages were occurring simultaneously.
1) Respondent was married to Socrates in 1976 but married Silverio in 1983 while still married to Socrates.
2) Respondent filed to annul her marriage to Socrates in 2003, after marrying Silverio.
3) The court ruled respondent was liable for bigamy as her marriage to Socrates had not been annulled at the time of her marriage to Silverio. A subsequent annulment does not change the fact that two marriages were occurring simultaneously.
ambivalent such that a person was allowed to enter a subsequent
Montanez v. Cipriano (2012) marriage without annulment of the first, without incurring criminal Petitioner: Merlinda Montanes liability. Respondent: Lourdes Cipriano RULING + RATIO: DOCTRINE: The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the first 1. No. respondent is liable for bigamy marriage would not change the fact that she contracted the second marriage during the substistence of the first marriage. The elements of bigamy are that: a) offender has been legally married b)the marriage has not been legally dissolved or in case his or her spouse is absent, FACTS: the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead c) he contracts a 1. Respondent Cipriano married Socrates on 1976 in Aklan. On 1983, subsequent marriage, and d) the subsequent marriage has all the requisites respondent married Silverio Cipriano during the subsistence of the first for validity. It is consummated on the celebration of the subsequent marriage. marriage. What is essential for the prosecution of bigamy is that the alleged second 2. Respondent then filed a Petition for Annulment of her first marriage with marriage, having all the requirements, would be valid were it not for the Socrates on the grounds of psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the subsistence of the first marriage. Family Code. Such marriage was then declared null and void. 3. Petitioner, Silverios daughter from a previous marriage, filed a case for In this case, when respondent contracted the 2 nd marriage with Silverio, her 1st Bigamy against Respondent. This was with an affidavit stating that marriage was still subsisting and had not been declared annulled or void. Thus respondent failed to reveal to Silverio that she was still married to all elements of bigamy were alleged in the Information. Based on the Socrates. Information, the annulment of the 1st marriage was only declared in 2003. 4. Respondent then alleged that her marriage with Socrates had already been declared void and thus there was no more marriage to speak of. In several cases, it was held that the subsequent judicial declaration of nullity 5. The prosecution argued that bigamy was already consummated upon filing of the 1st marriage was immaterial because prior to the declaration, the bigamy the declaration for nullity. had already been consummated. Even if the accused eventually obtained a 6. RTC denied respondents motion, saying that petitioner had already declaration that his first marriage was void ab initio, the point is, the first and committed bigamy and that such action has not yet prescribed. second marriage were subsisting. The moment the accused contracted a 2 nd 7. Respondent filed an MR, claiming that the RTCs legal basis marriage without the previous one being judicially declared null and void, (jurisprudence) was not applicable since the first marriage was contracted bigamy was already consummated. Here, at the time of the 2 nd marriage, the before the Family Code and that the annulment was granted before the first was still subsisting. Thus bigamy was properly charge to her. complaint for bigamy was filed. 8. RTC ruled that at the time accused had contracted the 2 nd marriage before Respondent calims that the legal basis is not applicable since the declaration the effectivity of the Family Code, the existing law did not require a judicial of nullity came before the filinf of information. But what makes a person declaration of absolute nullity as a condition precedent to contracting a criminally liable for bigamy is when he contracts a 2 nd marriage during the subsequent marriage. subsistence of the first. 9. It also found that both marriages of respondent was done before the Family Code, thus laws should be interpreted liberally for the accused. 2. No. Therefore the absence of a judicial declaration should not prejudice the accused whose second marriage was considered valid. In this case, respondent wants to obtain a judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage and invoke it to prevent prosecution for bigamy. Such is not possible. A party may evnter into a marriage license and therafter contract a ISSUES: subsequent marriage without obtaining a declaration of nullity of the first on 1. WON the declaration of nullity of respondents first marriage justifies the the assumption that the first marriage is void. dismissal of the Information for bigamy filed against respondent. 2. WON the RTC erred in stating that the jurisprudence prior to the Family DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, considering the foregoing, the petition is Code and in Wiegel regarding the necessity of a declaration of nullity is GRANTED.