Leo Joselito E.

Bono LLB-I EH408 (Prosecution Case Summary) 1

Under Article 349 of the Revised penal Code, in order for bigamy to
arise, the following elements must concur: (1) That the offender has been
legally married, (2) That the marriage has not been legally dissolved or in
case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not be presumed
dead according to the civil code, (3) That he contacts a second or a
subsequent marriage, (4) That the second or subsequent marriage has all the
essential requisites for validity.1

The facts of the given problem show that Beru had a prior marriage,
which took place in 1998 with her first boyfriend Lando. Owen, the present
husband of Beru, is seeking relief by filing a complaint for Bigamy against
her.

The Issues:

(1) WHETHER OR NOT bigamy was actually committed.

(2) WHETHER OR NOT there was a valid marriage between Beru and
Lando.

SEMPER PRO MATRIMONIO (always presume marriage). 2

Fundamental is the rule that when a marriage has been consummated in
accordance with the forms of the law, it is presumed that no legal
impediments existed to the parties entering such marriage. 3 This
presumption of legality is said to be the strongest known presumption in law.
When the question as to whether or not a marriage has been contracted arises
in litigation, said marriage may be proved by evidence of any kind. But the
primary best evidence of a marriage is the marriage contract or the marriage
certificate.4

It is paramount to know that for one to invoke an alibi, it must be

shown that it was physically impossible for the accused to be present at the
place where the event was said to be committed. 5 It must also be stressed
that alibi is a weak defense for it is easy of fabrication. 6

Article 3 of the Family Code provides:

“Art. 3. The formal requisites of marriage are:

1) Authority of the solemnizing officer;

1 Luis Reyes, The Revised Penal Code Book Two (Manila: Rex Bookstore,
2012), 972.
2 Adong v. Cheong Seng Gee, 43 Phil. 43.
3 Wenning v. Teeple, 144 In. 189.
4 Melencio Sta. Maria, Persons and Family Relations (Manila: Rex Book Store,

2010), 154.
5 People v. Cruz, 208 SCRA 326.
6 People v. Ragas, 44 SCRA 152.
 Leo Joselito E. Bono LLB-I EH408 (Prosecution Case Summary) 2

2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided in Chapter 2 of

this title; and
3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the
contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal
declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the
presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age.”

There are steps before a valid marriage can arise. It is within the
context of the family code that gives guidelines for marriage and family
relations. In the case at bar, Beru had an alleged simulated marriage with
Lando. Taking into account the context of the family code, it is not really
proper for a solemnizing officer to give into consideration a “simulated”
marriage for another purpose besides establishing a conjugal and family life.
Marriage is a sacred union and cannot be considered as an object of ridicule.
The state protects the family as contemplated under our constitution. If
people would be allowed to do simulated marriages, then that would be
tantamount to allowing future damages to our society

Whether the marriage is simulated or not, it still follows that every

essential and formal requisites must be complied with. So as long as a
“marriage ceremony” did happen, whether the purpose is for something else,
this doesn’t affect its validity. The facts of the given problem show that Beru
did admit that there was indeed a marriage though simulated, this admission
gives rise to the presumption of Semper Pro Matrimonio. Besides, in
marriage, it is the agreement itself of the principal contracting parties in the
presence of the representative of the state, the solemnizing officer, which
constitutes the contract. If it was a “simulated” marriage, the parties could
have told the solemnizing officer that such ceremony was indeed a fraud.
However, considering the fact that there was indeed a solemnization of
marriage and signing of contract, it goes to show that there is already a
presumption of exchange of vows.7 Since there was a signing of the contract,
it means that the parties did comply with the guidelines to contract a
marriage, i.e. a marriage license. So whether simulated or not, the parties did
comply with the formal requisites of a valid marriage, and the purpose has
yet to be contradicted.

It is an elementary ruling that an alibi is a weak defense. One must

establish clear and convincing evidence to show that she was indeed
physically absent during the commission of the event. It was established that
Beru did not ought to know that the contract was registered. This contention
of hers is highly devoid of merit. It was already established that there was an
admission that there was indeed a marriage that happened. Whether
simulated or not, its validity could not be attacked by stating that Beru did
not know of the fact that it was registered. Beru must establish that the
marriage between her and Owen was indeed, a void marriage. However,
such alibi could not hold water.

7 Balogbog v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83598, March 7, 1997.

 Leo Joselito E. Bono LLB-I EH408 (Prosecution Case Summary) 3

Taking into account everything that has been stated, it goes to show
that Beru did commit Bigamy. Their marriage with Lando was valid and
legal, it was not legally dissolved when she contracted a marriage with
Owen, and Owen and Beru’s marriage is also valid. Hence, Beru is
criminally liable under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.
 Leo Joselito E. Bono LLB-I EH408 (Prosecution Case Summary) 4

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Reyes, Luis. The Revised Penal Code Book II. 2012 ed. Manila: Rex
Publishing, 2012.

Sta.Maria, Melencio. Persons and Family Relations Law. 5th ed.

Manila: Rex Publishing, 2010.