G.R. No. L-40895 - NOVEMBER 1975 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-40895November 6, 1975 Milagros De La Cruz vs. J. Bienvenido Ejercito, et al. G.R. No. L-41313November 6, 1975 Alipio Mondiguing, et al. vs. J. Francisco Men Abad, et al. G.R. No. L-21998November 10, 1975 Calixto Pasagui, et al. vs. Ester T. Villablanca, et al. G.R. No. L-41225November 11, 1975 Rosensons, Inc., et al. vs. J. Jose Jimenez, et al. A.M. No. 1347November 12, 1975 Bettina B. Yangson vs. Edgardo M. Salandanan G.R. No. L-32120November 12, 1975 Gertrudes I. Vda. De Olib, et al. vs. City of Manila G.R. Nos. L-30464-5November 13, 1975 People of the Philippines vs. Alberto N. Domingo, et al. G.R. No. L-37884November 14, 1975 Vicente B. Chuidian vs. Ricardo C. Puno, et al. A.M. No. 203-JNovember 18, 1975 Secretary of Justice vs. Alfredo Catolico G.R. No. L-29364November 21, 1975 People of the Philippines vs. Marcelino Payao, et al. A.M. No. 704November 24, 1975 Mercedes R. Vda. De Guerrero vs. Harold M. Hernando A.M. No. 177-MJNovember 27, 1975 Concepcion Dia-Añonuevo vs. Bonifacio B. Bercacio G.R. No. L-23785November 27, 1975 People of the Philippines vs. Elias Adillo G.R. No. L-29274November 27, 1975 Quirico P. Evangelista vs. Hilarion U. Jarencio, et al. Separate OpinionsJustice Fernando & Justice Teehankee A.M. No. 6-MJNovember 28, 1975 Puahing Pawaki vs. Nabdar J. Malik A.M. No. P-25November 28, 1975 Murillo O. Omadto vs. Francisco G. Evangelista G.R. No. L-20400November 28, 1975 City of Zamboanga vs. Juan S. Alvarez G.R. No. L-24003November 28, 1975 Hadji Mohamad Daud vs. Coll. of Customs of the Port of Zamboanga City G.R. No. L-25320November 28, 1975 United States Lines Co. vs. Associated Watchmen and Security Union, et al. G.R. No. L-27043November 28, 1975 Agustin Sanchez, et al. vs. Mariano A. Zosa, et al. G.R. No. L-27594November 28, 1975 Director of Lands, et al. vs. Salvador C. Reyes, et al. G.R. No. L-28126November 28, 1975 Vita Uy Lee, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-29587November 28, 1975 Philippine National Bank vs. Luzon Surety Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-29719November 28, 1975 Maria Villanueva, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-30175November 28, 1975 Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines vs. Jose Samson, et al. G.R. No. L-30839November 28, 1975 Republic vs. Court of First Instance of Manila, et al. G.R. No. L-33270November 28, 1975 People of the Philippines vs. Vicente Del Rosario G.R. No. L-36153November 28, 1975 Alfonso V. Legaspi vs. Secretary of Dar, et al. G.R. No. L-37522November 28, 1975 Francisco G. Rodriguez, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-38850November 28, 1975 In Re: Regina Paz Lopez. Regina Paz Lopez vs. Bob Garon M.S., et al. G.R. No. L-40488November 28, 1975 Josefa Bentaja Figueroa vs. Jose B. Jimenez G.R. No. L-40779November 28, 1975 Epicharis T. Garcia vs. Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School G.R. No. L-41054November 28, 1975 Jose L. Gamboa, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Milagros De La Cruz vs. J. Bienvenido Ejercito, et al. Alipio Mondiguing, et al. vs. J. Francisco Men Abad, et al. Calixto Pasagui, et al. vs. Ester T. Villablanca, et al. Rosensons, Inc., et al. vs. J. Jose Jimenez, et al. Bettina B. Yangson vs. Edgardo M. Salandanan Gertrudes I. Vda. De Olib, et al. vs. City of Manila People of the Philippines vs. Alberto N. Domingo, et al. Vicente B. Chuidian vs. Ricardo C. Puno, et al. Secretary of Justice vs. Alfredo Catolico People of the Philippines vs. Marcelino Payao, et al. Mercedes R. Vda. De Guerrero vs. Harold M. Hernando Concepcion Dia-Añonuevo vs. Bonifacio B. Bercacio People of the Philippines vs. Elias Adillo Quirico P. Evangelista vs. Hilarion U. Jarencio, et al. Separate OpinionsJustice Fernando & Justice Teehankee Puahing Pawaki vs. Nabdar J. Malik Murillo O. Omadto vs. Francisco G. Evangelista City of Zamboanga vs. Juan S. Alvarez Hadji Mohamad Daud vs. Coll. of Customs of the Port of Zamboanga City United States Lines Co. vs. Associated Watchmen and Security Union, et al. Agustin Sanchez, et al. vs. Mariano A. Zosa, et al. Director of Lands, et al. vs. Salvador C. Reyes, et al. Vita Uy Lee, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Philippine National Bank vs. Luzon Surety Co., Inc., et al. Maria Villanueva, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines vs. Jose Samson, et al. Republic vs. Court of First Instance of Manila, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Vicente Del Rosario Alfonso V. Legaspi vs. Secretary of Dar, et al. Francisco G. Rodriguez, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. In Re: Regina Paz Lopez. Regina Paz Lopez vs. Bob Garon M.S., et al. Josefa Bentaja Figueroa vs. Jose B. Jimenez Epicharis T. Garcia vs. Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School Jose L. Gamboa, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-40895 November 6, 1975
MILAGROS DE LA CRUZ,petitioner,
vs.
HON. JUDGE BIENVENIDO EJERCITO, Court of First Instance of Pampanga and Angeles City, Branch IV; TEODORO DAVID, City Fiscal of Angeles City, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, thru the Office of the SOLICITOR GENERAL,respondents. .
C. S. Gaddi & Maximo Q. Canlas for petitioner. .
Office of the Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor General Eulogio Raquel-Santos and Solicitor Tomas M. Dilig for respondent People of the Philippines.
City Fiscal Eller Dula Torres for respondent City Fiscal of Angeles City.
AQUINO,J.:
On May 20, 1974 Milagros de la Cruz was charged with bigamy in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, Angeles City Branch IV for having married Sergeant Dominick L. Gaccino on September 15, 1973 while her prior marriage to Teodoro G. David was undissolved. The information was filed at the instance of her first husband (Criminal Case No. 3128).
On August 1, 1974 Milagros de la Cruz filed in the same court at its San Fernando Branch III a complaint for the annulment of her marriage to Sergeant Gaccino on the ground of duress (Civil Case No. 4188).
Defendant Gaccino did not answer the complaint. Judge Mariano Castañeda, Jr. ordered the Provincial Fiscal to investigate whether there was a collusion between the parties. A special counsel of the Fiscal's office reported that there was no collusion. .
On December 16, 1974 Judge Castañeda rendered a decision annulling the marriage of Milagros de la Cruz to Gaccino. No appeal was taken from that decision. It became final. In view of the annulment of her second marriage, Milagros de la Cruz filed on January 27, 1975 a motion to dismiss the bigamy charge. The private prosecutor and the prosecuting fiscal opposed the motion.
Judge Bienvenido Ejercito denied it in his order of May 27, 1975 on the ground that the decision in the annulment case is not controlling in the criminal case because the parties and the issues in the two cases are not the same.
That refusal of Judge Ejercito to dismiss the bigamy case, not withstanding the judicial pronouncement that her second marriage was a nullity, prompted Milagros de la Cruz to file the instant special civil action ofcertiorariand prohibition.
The issue is whether the bigamy case became moot or untenable after the second marriage, on which the prosecution for bigamy is based, was annulled.
The City Fiscal of Angeles City contends that the lower court acted correctly in denying the motion to dismiss the bigamy charge.ℒαwρhi৷He argues that the decision in the annulment case should be set up as a defense by Milagros de la Cruz during the trial and that it would not justify the outright dismissal of the criminal case.
On the other hand, the Solicitor General manifested that the stand of Milagros de la Cruz should be sustained because one element of bigamy is that the alleged second marriage, having all the requisites, would be valid were it not for the subsistence of the first marriage (People vs. Mora Dumpo, 62 Phil. 246, 248; Merced vs. Hon. Diez, 109 Phil. 155; Zapanta vs. Montesa, 114 Phil. 1227).
We hold that the finding in the annulment case that the second marriage contracted by Milagros de la Cruz with Sergeant Gaccino was a nullity is determinative of her innocence and precludes the rendition of a verdict that she committed bigamy. To try the criminal case in the face of such a finding would be unwarranted.
As noted by Groizard, it is essential "que el segundo matrimonio 'ha de constituir un acto solemne en que concurran los requisitos exigidos para la existencia del sacramento o del contrato' " (2 Cuello Calon, Derecho Penal, 12th ed., p. 675, note 2). As pointed out in theMercedcase,supra,it is necessary in a prosecution for bigamy that the second marriage be declared valid if its validity was questioned in a civil action.
And even supposingarguendothat the decree annulling the second marriage was questionable or erroneous because it was issued in a judgment by default, still that would not prevent the decree from having legal effect. "An erroneous judgment is not a void judgment" (Chereau vs. Fuentebella, 43 Phil. 216).
WHEREFORE,the lower court's order of May 27, 1975, denying the motion to dismiss of Milagros de la Cruz, is set aside. The writ of prohibition is granted. No Costs.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo (Actg. Chairman), Antonio, Concepcion, Jr. and Martin, JJ., concur.
Fernando, J., is on leave.