Anomalous situation

To be liable for bigamy, the second or subsequent marriage contracted by the accused must have all the essential requisites for validity. If the second marriage contracted by the accused is not valid, she cannot be convicted of bigamy. But in this case of Naty, this rule is of no avail. Let us find out why.

Naty was a 43-year-old widow with two children. Since her husband died, she and her children lived with her in-laws in the province where she helped in the operations of the family’s piggery farm. It was during this time when she first met Paulo, an agent who sold piglets to her. Their frequent meetings somehow developed into an intimate relationship, as Paulo visited often in her house.

From the very start, however, Naty’s children, as well as her brother-in-law and parents-in-law, already disliked Paulo and somehow doubted his sincerity and personal background. Nevertheless, Paulo persisted in courting Naty and the two decided to get married even if a few months before their scheduled date of marriage, Naty met Lina, who introduced herself as Paulo’s legal wife of 20 years.

Such information did not dissuade Naty to push through with her marriage to Paulo. So over the advice of her brother-in-law and parents-in-law that if she wanted to remarry, she should choose someone who was “without responsibility,” Naty married Paulo about less than four years after they met.

The marriage was solemnized by an officer even without a marriage license because Paulo and Naty misrepresented to him that they had actually been cohabiting as husband and wife for at least five years. Hence, a marriage certificate was issued by the solemnizing officer in which he stated under oath that no marriage license was necessary because the marriage was solemnized pursuant to Article 34 of the Family Code, which exempts couples from getting a marriage license if they have been living together as husband and wife for at least five years.

But barely four months after their marriage, Naty and Paulo were charged with the crime of bigamy before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) upon complaint of Lina. Only Naty faced the charges and pleaded “not guilty” because Paulo escaped and went into hiding.

At the trial, Lina testified for the prosecution and reiterated that she met Naty twice, a few months before her marriage to Paulo when she introduced herself as Paulo’s legal wife. Naty, however, denied this allegation and insisted that she did not know that Paulo was married because she met Lina only after they got married.

She also claimed that her marriage to Paulo was null and void as they had no marriage license and they were not covered by Article 34 of the Family Code dispensing with said license because she and Paulo had not actually lived for at least five years as husband and wife, considering that she met and knew Paulo for only about four years.

But the RTC still convicted Naty for marrying Paulo. It relied more on Lina’s testimony that she had already introduced herself as Paulo’s legal wife before said marriage. It also rejected Naty’s defense that the second marriage was null and void for lack of license and relied more on the Certificate of Marriage issued by the solemnizing officer, who attested under oath that the marriage was celebrated without the need of a marriage license under Article 34 of the Family Code. So it sentenced Naty to suffer imprisonment of six months and one day as minimum to six years and one day as maximum.

Naty appealed this ruling to the Court of Appeals (CA). She insisted that she could not be liable for the crime of bigamy because her second marriage to Paulo was null and void for lack of marriage license considering that, as admitted by the prosecution, they have not been living together as husband and wife for at least five years and therefore are not exempted from getting a marriage license. Was Naty correct?

No. Even if it is true that Naty and Paulo have only known each other for less than four years, it appears that the two of them lied before the solemnizing officer and misrepresented that they had cohabited for at least five years before they married each other. The Certificate of Marriage signed by them contains this misrepresentation. This is an anomalous situation where Naty seeks to be acquitted of bigamy based on her own illegal acts of (1) marrying Paulo without a marriage license despite knowing that they had not satisfied the cohabitation requirement under the law and (2) falsely making claims in the very marriage contract itself.

To countenance these illegal acts of Naty and in the same breath adjudge her innocent of the crime would only make a mockery of the sanctity of marriage. The state’s penal laws on bigamy should not be rendered nugatory by allowing individuals to “deliberately ensure that the marital contract is flawed in some manner, and thus escape the consequences of contracting multiple marriages while beguiling throngs of hapless women with promise of futurity and commitment.”

Naty may be liable in this case because she had knowledge of the previous subsisting marriage of Paulo. This constitutes an indispensable cooperation in the commission of the crime of bigamy. But it makes her liable only as an accomplice and not as principal. So her penalty should only be a minimum of six months up to a maximum of four years, plus accessory penalties provided by law (Santiago vs. People, G.R. 200233, July 15, 2015).