Nollora v. People

Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. married Jesusa Pinat on April 6, 1999 at the IEMELIF Church in Sapang Palay, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. While that marriage subsisted, he married Rowena P. Geraldino on December 8, 2001 in a ceremony officiated by a reverend at a Quezon City restaurant. In the second marriage certificate he declared his civil status as "single" and his religion as Catholic. After learning of the second marriage from an NSO certification, Pinat complained, and Nollora and Geraldino were charged with bigamy. At the pre-trial the validity of the first marriage and the fact of the second were stipulated. Nollora's sole defense was that he had converted to Islam in 1992, before both marriages, and could therefore marry up to four wives. He admitted keeping his conversion and his first marriage secret, and that he had not sought his first wife's permission. The RTC of Quezon City convicted Nollora of bigamy under Art. 349 of the Revised Penal Code and acquitted Geraldino for insufficient evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that since neither marriage was conducted under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws, the Family Code applied. Nollora petitioned the Supreme Court.

1. 1Whether Nollora is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy despite his claim that, as a Muslim convert, he could validly contract a second marriage.

Yes. The petition was denied. All the elements of bigamy under Art. 349 of the Revised Penal Code were present. (1) Nollora was legally married to Pinat. (2) That marriage had not been dissolved when he contracted the second. (3) He admitted the second marriage. (4) The second marriage had all the essential requisites for validity except his lack of capacity due to the prior marriage. The marriage certificates and the Civil Registrar General's certification established both marriages. Even granting that Nollora was a Muslim when he married, neither ceremony was conducted in accordance with the Code of Muslim Personal Laws (P.D. 1083). The Court set out the Code's requisites for a Muslim marriage (Arts. 14-20). Under Art. 13(2) of P.D. 1083, a marriage between a Muslim and a non-Muslim that is not solemnized in accordance with Muslim law is governed by the Family Code. The exemption in Art. 180 of P.D. 1083, which excludes the bigamy provisions for persons married under that Code, therefore did not apply, "regardless of his professed religion." His false declaration of "single" status and his failure to state that he was a Muslim in either certificate further proved his liability. Nollora could not impugn the validity of his second marriage to escape liability. Citing Tenebro v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that a void marriage may still produce legal consequences, including criminal liability for bigamy; otherwise people could deliberately flaw each marriage to evade the law. The CA decision and resolution were affirmed, with an indeterminate sentence of two years, four months and one day of prision correccional to eight years and one day of prision mayor.