Republic of The Philippines Supreme Court: Notice

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
dated 01 March 2021 which reads as follows :
"G.R. No. 254581 (Armando G. Castro v. People of the Philippines)

- The Court NOTES the compliance and manifestation dated 29 January
202 I of counsel for petitioner relative to the Resolution dated I I January
202 I, submitting the affidavit of service of the motion for extension of time
to file petition and the verified declaration of the electronic filing of the said
motion.
The petition must fai l.
T he elements of bigamy are: ( 1) the offender has been legally married;

(2) the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case hi s or her spouse is
absent, the absent spou se could not yet be presumed dead according to the
Civil Code; (3) that he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and (4) the
second or subsequent ma1Tiage has a ll the essential requisites for validity.'
Petitioner claims that the prosecution failed to prove these elements

s ince his marriage w ith Anita Castro y Mamaclay (Anita) was no longer
subsisting per Decision dated December 14, 2016 in Civil Case No. 15-886-
CV declaring their marriage void. Hence, the element that the offender must
be legally married is wanting.
Petitioner is mistaken.
Under Article 40 of the Family Code, the absolute nullity of a previous

marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a
final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. Otherwise stated, a
1
Capili v. People. 7 13 Phil. 256, 262(20 13).
A(S)URES - more -
Resolution 2 G.R. No. 254581
March \-A, 2021
judicial declaration of nullity is required before a valid subsequent marriage

can be contracted; or else, what transpires is a bigamous marriage,
reprehensible and immoral. 2
Here, petitioner contracted two (2) subsequent marriages after Anita:

first with Escolastica Versoza in 1990, and second, with Estelita Dagdag
(Estelita) in 2007. Obviously, when these man-iages were solemnized,
petitioner did not have a judicial decree of nullity of his previous marriage
which he only secured in 2016, or more than a decade after his subsequent
man-iages were celebrated.
Clearly, petitioner's civil action to declare as void his marriage with

Anita was a mere afterthought in order to evade his prosecution for bigamy.
Petitioner, too, may not rely on his religion to exculpate him from
criminal liability. For one, not one of petitioner's marriage contracts bears the
information that he is a Muslim. For another, as found by the trial court, in
securing a marriage license for his marriage with Estelita, he declared that he
was single. This amplifies his deliberate intent to contract bigamous
marriages. 3
Petitioner's deceptive scheme by converting to Islam in 2007 is

obviously an attempt to hide what is basically a bigamous marriage in his vain
effort to escape criminal prosecution. 4
As for Anita's alleged lack of standing as real paiiy-in-interest, we

recall that the crime was committed by petitioner not when he got married to
Estelita, but when he married Lino O1jalo on March 4, 1970, albeit his
marriage with Lydia Sison Ramos whom he married on January 19, 1959 was
sti 11 subsisting. 5
In bigamy, both the first and subsequent spouses may be the offended
parties depending on the circumstances. It is immaterial, therefore, that
petitioner was the third spouse. What is material is the existence of all the
elements of the crime of bigamy and that the offended party did not know that
her husband was already married to another person at the time they were
married. 6
Petitioner next pleads that the period for fi ling a case for bigamy had
already prescribed.
As correctly held by the courts below, for bigamy, the fifteen (15) year
prescriptive period provided under Article 92 7 of the RPC commences only at
2 lasanas v. People citing Teves v. People, 736 Phil. 734, 745 (2014).
3
Rollo, p. 33.
4 Id.
5
Id. at 34.
6 Id.
7 Art. 92. When and huw penalties prescribe. - The penalties imposed by final sentence prescribe as follows:
I. Death and reclus ion perpetua, in twenty years;
A(S)URES - more -
Resolution 3 G.R. No. 25458 I
March l-A, 202 l
the time of discovery of the commission of the offense and not from the date
of registration of the subsequent man-iage. 8 Here, Anita discovered
petitioner's bigamous marriage with Estelita on February 24, 2014. Clearly,
when she filed the present criminal action against them on August 4, 2014 or
barely a year from her discovery of the offense, the same was well within the
fifteen (15) year reglementary period.
All told, the Court of Appeals did not err m affirming petitioner's
conviction for bigamy.
Article 349 can-ies the penalty of prision mayor for bigamy. 9 The
imposable penalty here corresponds to the medium term of prision mayor,
there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance. Applying the
indeterminate sentence law, petitioner was con-ectly sentenced to two (2)
years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum
to eight (8) years and one ( 1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Couti of Appeals'

Decision dated December 9, 2020 10 in CA-G.R. CR No. 43052 is
AFFIRMED.
Petitioner Armando G. Castro is found GUILTY of BIGAMY and

sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and
one ( 1) day of pris ion correccional, as minimum to eight (8) years and one
(1) day ofprision mayor, as maximum.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
'
~1w1ulNO TUAZON
erk of Court/JJl}j ,
2 -; MAY 2021 'i/n
2. Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen years;

3. Correctional penalties, in ten years; with the exception of the penalty of arresto mayor. which
prescribes in five years;
4. Light penalties, in one year.
8
Rollo, p. 45.
9
Vilangco/ v. People, 778 Phil. 326 (20 I 6) .
10
Penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi and concurred in by Associate Justices
Franchito N. Diamante and Walter S. Ong; rol/o, pp. 38-46.
A(S)URES - more -
Resolution 4 G. R. No. 254581
March OI, 202 1
ATTY. ERNESTO G. DEL ROSARIO (reg)

Counsel for Petitioner
18 Plaza Rizal, Poblacion, Caloocan City
DELA CRUZ & MANUEL LAW OFFICE (reg)

Private Prosecutor
Unit 203, Annapolis Place Building
No. 5 Annapolis St., Brgy. E. Rodriguez Sr.
Cubao, Quezon City
HON. PRESIDING JUDGE (reg)

Regional Trial Court, Branch I 09
Pasay City
(Crim . Case No. R-PSY-14-08896-CR)
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (reg)

134 Amorsolo Street
1229 Legaspi Village
Makati City
JUDGMENT DIVISION (x)

Supreme Court, Manila
PUBLfC INFORMATION OFFICE (x)

LIBRARY SERVICES (x)
[For uploading pursuant to A.M. No. 12-7- 1-SC]
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ATTORNEY (x)

OFFICE OF THE REPORTER (x)
PHJLIPPINE JUDICAL ACADEMY (x)
Supreme Court, Manila
COURT OF APPEALS (x)

Ma. Orosa Street
Ermita, l000 Manila
CA-G.R. CR No. 43052
Please notify tlte Court ofany clta11ge in your address.

GR25458 1. 03/0l/2021A(S)URES /<l-..1

Republic of The Philippines Supreme Court: Notice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of The Philippines Supreme Court: Notice

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of The Philippines Supreme Court: Notice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

"G.R. No. 254581 (Armando G. Castro v. People of the Philippines)

The petition must fai l.

T he elements of bigamy are: ( 1) the offender has been legally married;

Petitioner claims that the prosecution failed to prove these elements

Under Article 40 of the Family Code, the absolute nullity of a previous

judicial declaration of nullity is required before a valid subsequent marriage

Here, petitioner contracted two (2) subsequent marriages after Anita:

Clearly, petitioner's civil action to declare as void his marriage with

Petitioner's deceptive scheme by converting to Islam in 2007 is

As for Anita's alleged lack of standing as real paiiy-in-interest, we

I. Death and reclus ion perpetua, in twenty years;

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Couti of Appeals'

Petitioner Armando G. Castro is found GUILTY of BIGAMY and

By authority of the Court:

2. Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen years;

ATTY. ERNESTO G. DEL ROSARIO (reg)

DELA CRUZ & MANUEL LAW OFFICE (reg)

HON. PRESIDING JUDGE (reg)

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (reg)

JUDGMENT DIVISION (x)

PUBLfC INFORMATION OFFICE (x)

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ATTORNEY (x)

COURT OF APPEALS (x)

Please notify tlte Court ofany clta11ge in your address.

You might also like