LEONILA G. SANTIAGO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , G.R. No. 200233 JULY 15, 2015

Case Digest

LEONILA G. SANTIAGO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , G.R. No. 200233 JULY 15, 2015

Facts: Four months after the solemnization of their marriage on 29 July 1997, 3 Leonila G. Santiago and Nicanor F. Santos faced an Information 4 for bigamy. Petitioner pleaded "not guilty," while her putative husband escaped the criminal suit. 5 The prosecution adduced evidence that Santos, who had been married to Estela Galang since 2 June 1974, 

The RTC appreciated the undisputed fact that petitioner married Santos during the subsistence of his marriage to Galang. Based on the more credible account of Galang that she had already introduced herself as the legal wife of Santos in March and April 1997, the trial court rejected the affirmative defense of petitioner that she had not known of the first marriage. It also held that it was incredible for a learned person like petitioner to be easily duped by a person like Santos. 8

The RTC declared that as indicated in the Certificate of Marriage, "her marriage was celebrated without a need for a marriage license in accordance with Article 34 of the Family Code, which is an admission that she cohabited with Santos long before the celebration of their marriage." 9Thus, the trial court convicted petitioner as follows: 10

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court finds the accused Leonila G. Santiago GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Bigamy, defined and penalized under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code and imposes against her the indeterminate penalty of six ( 6) months and one (1) day of Prision Correctional as minimum to six ( 6) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor as maximum. 

Petitioner moved for reconsideration. She contended that her marriage to Santos was void ab initio for having been celebrated without complying with Article 34 of the Family Code, which provides an exemption from the requirement of a marriage license if the parties have actually lived together as husband and wife for at least five years prior to the celebration of their marriage. In her case, petitioner asserted that she and Santos had not lived together as husband and wife for five years prior to their marriage. Hence, she argued that the absence of a marriage license effectively rendered their marriage null and void, justifying her acquittal from bigamy. The RTC refused to reverse her conviction and held thus: 11Accused Santiago submits that it is her marriage to her co-accused that is null and void as it was celebrated without a valid marriage license x x x. In advancing that theory, accused wants this court to pass judgment on the validity of her marriage to accused Santos, something this court cannot do. The best support to her argument would have been the submission of a judicial decree of annulment of their marriage. Absent such proof, this court cannot declare their marriage null and void in these proceedings. 

On appeal before the CA, petitioner claimed that her conviction was not based on proof beyond reasonable doubt. She attacked the credibility of Galang and insisted that the former had not known of the previous marriage of Santos. Similar to the RTC, the CA gave more weight to the prosecution witnesses' narration. It likewise disbelieved the testimony of Santos. Anent the lack of a marriage license, the appellate court simply stated that the claim was a vain attempt to put the validity of her marriage to Santos in question. Consequently, the CA affirmed her conviction for bigamy. 12

ISSUES: petitioner reiterates that she cannot be a co-accused in the instant case, because she was not aware of Santos's previous marriage. But in the main, she argues that for there to be a conviction for bigamy, a valid second marriage must be proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 

Citing People v. De Lara, 13 she contends that her marriage to Santos is void because of the absence of a marriage license. She elaborates that their marriage does not fall under any of those marriages exempt from a marriage license, because they have not previously lived together exclusively as husband and wife for at least five years. She alleges that it is extant in the records that she married Santos in 1997, or only four years since she met him in 1993. Without completing the five-year requirement, she posits that their marriage without a license is void.

Held: In the crime of bigamy, both the first and second spouses may be the offended parties depending on the circumstances, as when the second spouse married the accused without being aware of his previous marriage. Only if the second spouse had knowledge of the previous undissolved marriage of the accused could she be included in the information as a co-accused. (Emphasis supplied) 

Therefore, the lower courts correctly ascertained petitioner's knowledge of Santos's marriage to Galang. Both courts consistently found that she knew of the first marriage as shown by the totality of the following circumstances: 19 (1) when Santos was courting and visiting petitioner in the house of her in-laws, they openly showed their disapproval of him; (2) it was incredible for a learned person like petitioner to not know of his true civil status; and (3) Galang, who was the more credible witness compared with petitioner who had various inconsistent testimonies, straightforwardly testified that she had already told petitioner on two occasions that the former was the legal wife of Santos. 

After a perusal of the records, it is clear that the marriage between petitioner and Santos took place without a marriage license. The absence of this requirement is purportedly explained in their Certificate of Marriage, which reveals that their union was celebrated under Article 34 of the Family Code. The provision reads as follows: 

No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and without any legal impediment to marry each other. The contracting parties shall state the foregoing facts in an affidavit before any person authorized by law to administer oaths. The solemnizing officer shall also state under oath that he ascertained the qualifications of the contracting parties are found no legal impediment to the marriage.31

Here, respondent did not dispute that petitioner knew Santos in more or less in February 1996 32 and that after six months of courtship,33 she married him on 29 July 1997. Without any objection from the prosecution, petitioner testified that Santos had frequently visited her in Castellano, Nueva Ecija, prior to their marriage. However, he never cohabited with her, as she was residing in the house of her in-laws,34 and her children from her previous marriage disliked him.35 On cross examination, respondent did not question the claim of petitioner that sometime in 1993, she first met Santos as an agent who sold her piglets.36

All told, the evidence on record shows that petitioner and Santos had only known each other for only less than four years. Thus, it follows that the two of them could not have cohabited for at least five years prior to their marriage. 

Santiago and Santos, however, reflected the exact opposite of this demonstrable fact. Although the records do not show that they submitted an affidavit of cohabitation as required by Article 34 of the Family Code, it appears that the two of them lied before the solemnizing officer and misrepresented that they had actually cohabited for at least five years before they married each other. Unfortunately, subsequent to this lie was the issuance of the Certificate of Marriage, 37 in which the solemnizing officer stated under oath that no marriage license was necessary, because the marriage was solemnized under Article 34 of the Family Code. 

The legal effects in a criminal case of a deliberate act to put a flaw in the marriage 

The Certificate of Marriage, signed by Santos and Santiago, contained the misrepresentation perpetrated by them that they were eligible to contract marriage without a license. We thus face an anomalous situation wherein petitioner seeks to be acquitted of bigamy based on her illegal actions of (1) marrying Santos without a marriage license despite knowing that they had not satisfied the cohabitation requirement under the law; and (2) falsely making claims in no less than her marriage contract. 

We chastise this deceptive scheme that hides what is basically a bigamous and illicit marriage in an effort to escape criminal prosecution. Our penal laws on marriage, such as bigamy, punish an individual's deliberate disregard of the permanent and sacrosanct character of this special bond between spouses.38 In Tenebro v. Court of Appeals,39 we had the occasion to emphasize that the State's penal laws on bigamy should not be rendered nugatory by allowing individuals "to deliberately ensure that each marital contract be flawed in some manner, and to thus escape the consequences of contracting multiple marriages, while beguiling throngs of hapless women with the promise of futurity and commitment." 

Thus, in the case at bar, we cannot countenance petitioner's illegal acts of feigning a marriage and, in the same breath, adjudge her innocent of the crime. For us, to do so would only make a mockery of the sanctity of marriage. 40

Furthermore, it is a basic concept of justice that no court will "lend its aid to x x x one who has consciously and voluntarily become a party to an illegal act upon which the cause of action is founded." 41 If the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa or that which involves a transgression of positive law, parties shall be left unassisted by the courts. 42 As a result, litigants shall be denied relief on the ground that their conduct has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest or fraudulent, or deceitful as to the controversy in issue. 43

Here, the cause of action of petitioner, meaning her affirmative defense in this criminal case of bigamy, is that her marriage with Santos was void for having been secured without a marriage license. But as elucidated earlier, they themselves perpetrated a false Certificate of Marriage by misrepresenting that they were exempted from the license requirement based on their fabricated claim that they had already cohabited as husband and wife for at least five years prior their marriage. In violation of our law against illegal marriages,44 petitioner married Santos while knowing full well that they had not yet complied with the five-year cohabitation requirement under Article 34 of the Family Code. Consequently, it will be the height of absurdity for this Court to allow petitioner to use her illegal act to escape criminal conviction.

No less than the present Constitution provides that "marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State." 45 It must be safeguarded from the whims and caprices of the contracting parties. 46 in keeping therefore with this fundamental policy, this Court affirms the conviction of petitioner for bigamy

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner Leonila G. Santiago is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 33566 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. As modified, petitioner Leonila G. Santiago is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy as an accomplice. She is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor as minimum to four years of prision correctional as maximum plus accessory penalties provided by law.