Is a Muslim convert who got married twice not liable for bigamy because of his religion? This is the issue answered in this case of Nilo.
On April 6, 1999 Nilo got married to Susie whom he met at Saudi Arabia while she was working there as a staff midwife in a Naval Base Hospital. They got married at a Christian Church in San Jose, Del Monte, Bulacan. In their marriage contract, it is indicated that Nilo was a “Catholic Pentecostal,” After their marriage, the couple returned to Saudi Arabia where Susie continued working as staff midwife. Not long after however, Nilo left her at their house in Saudi and came back to the Philippines.
Back here in the Philippines, Nilo happened to meet once more his childhood friend and neighbor, Rina. That meeting eventually turned into romance until the two also got married on December 8, 2001 at Max’s Restaurant, Quezon Avenue, Quezon City. In their marriage certificate it is indicated that Nilo was a Catholic and that he was still single. After their marriage however, Rina learned that Nilo was a Muslim convert way back in 1992 so they also got married in Muslim rites.
While still working in the Saudi hospital, Susie heard rumors that Nilo had another wife. So because of anxiety and stress, she left Saudi and returned to the Philippines. Back here Susie learned of the second marriage of Nilo to Rina sometime in November 2003 when she secured a certification of the civil status of Nilo from the National Statistics Office (NSO) showing the dates and places of the two marriages contracted by Nilo.
Hence Susie allegedly confronted Rina who supposedly admitted to her that she knew of Nilo’s first marriage but still married him. Then Susie eventually filed a complaint for bigamy against Nilo and Rina before the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office who, after preliminary investigation filed the necessary Information on August 24, 2004 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) charging the two with the crime of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.
For his defense, Nilo admitted having contracted two marriages. But he claimed that he was a Muslim convert way back on January 10, 1992 even prior to his first marriage to Susie. As a Muslim convert, he is allegedly entitled to marry four wives as allowed under the Islam religion. To prove that he is a Muslim convert he presented a Certificate of Conversion which he obtained only in August 2004 when a complaint for bigamy had already been filed by Susie.
For her part Rina claimed that she was only a victim in this incident of bigamous marriage because when she got married to Nilo she thought he was single and a Catholic. She alleged that she only came to know of his first marriage when a complaint was filed against her. She denied having been confronted by Susie and admitting to the latter that she knew of Nilo’s first marriage to Susie. Were Nilo and Rina guilty?
The RTC, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court ruled that only Nilo is guilty of bigamy. The circumstances in this case satisfy all the elements of bigamy: (1) Nilo is legally married to Susie; (2) their marriage has not been legally dissolved prior to the date of the second marriage; (3) Nilo admitted the existence of his second marriage to Rina; and (4) Nilo and Rina’s marriage has all the requisites for validity except for lack of capacity of Nilo due to his prior marriage to Susie.
Granting that Nilo is indeed of Muslim faith at the time of celebration of both marriages, he cannot deny that both marriages were not conducted in accordance with the Code of Muslim Personal Laws and Presidential Decree 1083. Under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws (Article 13 [2]), in case of a marriage between a Muslim and a non-Muslim, solemnized not in accordance with Muslim law or this code, the Family Code of the Philippines or Executive Order No. 209 (FC), in lieu of the Civil Code of the Philippines shall apply. And under the FC Nilo’s marriage to Rina is a bigamous marriage. Nilo’s religious affiliation is therefore a non-issue. Thus regardless of his professed religion, Nilo cannot claim exemption from liability for the crime of bigamy.
Rina however cannot be held guilty. The allegation that she knew of the first marriage of Nilo to Susie is a mere allegation of Susie that has not been proven by sufficient evidence. Every circumstance favoring the accused’s innocence must be taken into account; proof against her must survive the test of reason and the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment.
So Rina is acquitted but Nilo is sentenced to a prison term of 2 years and 1 day as minimum to 8 years and 1 day as maximum (Nollora, Jr. vs. People, G.R. 191425, September 7, 2011, 657 SCRA, 330).
* * *
Email: jcson@pldtdsl.net