Robinson Flores Law Office

722 Tres De Abril Street

Labangon, Cebu City 6000
(032) 206-6784 FAX 268-7722 www.robfloresknowslaw.com.ph
To Robinson Flores Sr., Supervising Attorney
From Robinson Flores, Associate Attorney
Date: January 20, 2014
case: People of The Philipines v. Beru
Re: Lacking the Element of a legal previous marriage as defense in Bigamy
Case
STATEMENT OF THE ASSIGNMENT
In the Bigamy case filed against Ms.Beru by his alleged Husband
Owen, there are two possible options to render the verdict of acquittal. This
memo serves to present these two options.
FACTS
Prior to the charged of Bigamy, Ms.Beru honestly believed that her
marriage with a certain Mr.Owen is a valid and lawful one and that if not for
Owens accusation that she have contracted a bigamous marriage with him
by virtue of a summon from the office of the city prosecutor of Mandaue
mandating her to file a counter-affidavit regarding the case for Bigamy, such
belief would still stand without a doubt. By Ms.Berus statements, the
supposed bigamy case against her may have stemmed from a previous
relationship with a certain Lando where a simulated marriage was celebrated
between her and him in a presence of a solemnizing officer. And that such
simulated marriage was to discourage a woman whom Lando impregnated
from pursuing him.
Eventually Ms.Beru and Lando broke up, with the belief that such
marriage was never official. Upon receiving the complaint, she were
surprised and wanting answers she confronted lando with regards to the
status of such alleged simulated marriage only to find out that indeed Lando
registered the marriage contract without her knowledge and consent.

ISSUE
The first issue is whether the simulated marriage between Ms.Beru and
Lando is a valid one. The answer to such question, would partially answer
the main issue of the criminal case, that is, whether or not, the marriage of
Ms.Beru and Mr.Owen is a bigamous one, a prohibited marriage that is
punishable as a crime under article 349 of the Revised Penal code of the
Philippines.
BRIEF ANSWER
The simulated marriage between Ms.Bery and Lando is not a legally valid
marriage, it is one that is void from the beginning.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
One of the elements of the Crime of bigamy is that the person was
legally married. In order to constitute a valid marriage, certain requirements
are needed and are treated as essential elements, where without which, a
marriage is considered void from the beginning. Under article 35 of the
Family Code, A marriage that is solemnized by any person not legally
authorized to perform marriages unless such marriages were contracted with
either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had
the legal authority to do so is considered, void ab initio. Also, those
marriages solemnized without a license, except some instances which are not
the same as this case, are considered void ab initio.
The facts of the case merely states that indeed there was a solemnizing
officer in the simulated wedding, which begs the question , did the
solemnizing officer have the legal authority to perform the marriage between
Lando and Ms.Beru, especially when the marriage itself is that of a
simulated character and therefore must have been filled with legal
inadequacy since the alleged bride to be, Ms.Beru, never took the marriage
seriously in the first place. It would be hard to conduct such concealment if
the solemnizing officer was indeed a legally authorized one, for certain
requirements must be followed, standards and processes that is quite hard to
manuever if the brides belief was that only of a simulated marriage. A
proper solemnizing officer would have spot such problem.
In the alleged facts, it was mentioned that only the marriage contract
was registered. Now, under the same article in the family code, a marriage
license is a very important and essential requisite, absent which, could make
the marriage void ab initio. It is our theory, that not only is the solemnizing
officer, not a legally authorized one but that the marriage contract that was
registered by lando, was a fraudulently acquired one. We must examine the

marriage license first or the lack thereof, before we could proceed to our last
line of defense, the good faith defense.
Criminal intent is a very integral part of a crime, absent which may
lead to the acquittal of the accused. However, not all crimes require criminal
intent to convict an accused and that the good faith defense, however truthful
and relevant is not always accepted in all instances. Nonetheless, the option
is a valid one since the facts themselves clearly puts the accused in a victims
position, a position that may acquit her if not mitigate the punishment.
However, our goal in employing this defense is mainly to cast reasonable
doubt on the case. The burden of the prosecution is to prove all the elements
therein, where some of which we are ready to refute, if we are able argue
against the prosecution in where they cant prove one element, then good, if
not we go to our good faith defense.
CONCLUSION
In short, our main and initial defense is a simple one, try to prevent
the prosecution in proving at least one of the elements of Bigamy, preferably
the first element of a legal marriage, or at least cast a shadow of doubt in
existence of 2 elements. Our last option which is not necessarily our worst,
would be to put up a defense of good faith, hoping that it would cast
reasonable doubt upon the criminal case.
RECOMMENDATION
It is of my legal opinion that the best legal option would be to initially
start with the first defense, disprove the existence of any element and make
it hard for the prosecution to prove at least one. We should start, in
questioning the legality of the alleged prior marriage to Lando and should go
from there. Since lando, is in an apologetic state towards our client Ms.Beru,
we might be able to use him as our witness.
Sincerely,

_____________________
Atty. Robinson Flores PhD
Attorney at Law