Tenebro v. Court of Appeals

Veronico Tenebro married Leticia Ancajas on April 10, 1990 before a judge in Lapu-Lapu City. In late 1991 he told Ancajas that he had previously married Hilda Villareyes on November 10, 1986 and showed her a photocopy of the marriage contract. He then left to live with Villareyes. On January 25, 1993 he married a third woman, Nilda Villegas. Villareyes confirmed by letter that Tenebro was her husband. Ancajas filed a complaint for bigamy, and the Information charged the April 10, 1990 marriage. At trial Tenebro denied that he had validly married Villareyes, claiming that there was no ceremony and that he signed the contract only so she could collect his allotment as a seaman. He presented certifications from the National Statistics Office (1995) and the Manila civil registry (1997) stating that they had no record of the marriage. Meanwhile, on November 20, 1995, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Argao, Cebu declared his marriage to Ancajas void on the ground of psychological incapacity. The RTC of Lapu-Lapu City convicted him of bigamy under Art. 349 of the Revised Penal Code, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

1. 1Whether the prosecution proved the existence of a valid first marriage between Tenebro and Villareyes.
2. 2Whether the later judicial declaration that the second marriage is void on the ground of psychological incapacity relieves Tenebro of liability for bigamy.

The Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, yes. A certified copy of a marriage contract issued by the officer who has custody of it is admissible (Sec. 7, Rule 130) and deserves the full faith given to public documents. The defense certifications attested only to the absence of a record, not the absence of a marriage. Registration is not a requisite for a marriage's validity, and both certifications were dated after the second marriage. On the second issue, no. Art. 349 of the Revised Penal Code punishes the mere act of contracting a second marriage while a valid first marriage subsists, so the crime was consummated on April 10, 1990. A marriage contracted during a subsisting valid marriage is void anyway, and the Court saw no reason to treat nullity due to psychological incapacity differently. Psychological incapacity also does not show that the second marriage lacked an essential or formal requisite; here the parties had legal capacity, consented freely, and married with a license before a judge and witnesses. The declaration of nullity retroacts as to the marital bond, but a void marriage still has legal effects; under Art. 54 of the Family Code, for example, children conceived before the judgment are legitimate. "Among these legal consequences is incurring criminal liability for bigamy." To hold otherwise would let a person deliberately flaw each marriage to escape the bigamy law. The indeterminate penalty imposed below was correct. The petition was denied, and the conviction was affirmed in toto.