Lucio Morigo y Cacho v. People – GR No 145226, 02/06/2004, Quisumbing, J.

Facts: Morigo and Lucia Barrete are boardmates at Catalina Tortor’s house at Tagbilaran, Bohol for 4 years
(1974-1978) During the schoolyear ’77-’78, Morigo and Barrete lost contact. Then in 1984, Morigo
received a card from Barrete from Singapore; they exchanged letters and became sweethearts. In 1986,
Barette returned to the Philippines but left for Canada to work; they still maintained contact.

In 1990, Barrete returned to the Philippines and invited Morigo join her in Canada. They were married on
Aug. 30, ’90 at Iglesia de Filipina Nacional at Catagdaan, Pilar, Bohol. But on Sep 8, ’90 Barrete went back
to work in Canada and left Morigo behind. On Aug 19 ’91, Lucia petitioned divorce from Morigo with the
Ontario Court (General Division) on Jan 17 ’92. It was granted and took effect on Feb 17 ’92.

On Oct 4 ’92, Morigo married Maria Jechecha Lumbago at Virgen sa Barangay Parish, Tagbiliran, Bohol.
On Sep 21 ’93, Morigo filled for a declaration of nullity with the Bohol RTC on ground that there was no
ceremony.

Morigo was accused of bigamy on Oct 19 ’93 by the City Prosecutor with RTC. Morigo moved to suspend
the case since there was a prejudicial question concerning his previous marriage. It was initially granted
but then denied upon motion for reconsideration by the prosecutor. He pleaded not guilty. However, he
was found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt and was sentenced to a term of 7 months Prision
Correccional as min. to 6 years and 1 day of Prision Mayor as max.

The RTC discounted Morigo’s claim of his marriage void ab initio and stated that want of a valid ceremony
is not a defense in the face of bigamy; citing Domingo v. CA. He may not assume the marriage is void
unless declared so. RTC cited Ramirez v. Gmur where the divorce is not recognized since neither spouse
is domiciled in the same area when the divorce was done. This disproved Morigo’s defense of good faith
in the second marriage. RTC also cited People v. Bitdu where everyone is presumed to know the law.

Concerning the civil case, the RTC declared the first marriage void ab initio; no appeal was made, and it
became final and executory. The CA affirmed the criminal and civil cases in toto. CA claimed that the nullity
of marriage did not acquit Morigo as per Art. 349 RPC for a 2nd marriage before the first was dissolved.
The divorce in Canada is not valid in the Philippines as per Art. 15 and 17 CC where the divorce was
contrary to public policy and public policy cannot be ineffectual via judgment from foreign jurisdiction.

Morigo moved for reconsideration citing Mendiola v. People where it allows mistake upon a difficult
question of law – foreign divorce decree – to be a basis for good faith. CA denied him for lack of merit.

Issue: (1) Whether CA erred in failing to apply the rule that criminal intent is a requisite for crimes
punishable by RPC (2) Whether CA erred in discounting the lack of criminal intent (3) Whether CA erred
in applying the rule that in every circumstance favoring the innocent, the accused must be taken into
account.

(1) Whether Morigo committed bigamy (2) Whether his defense of good faith was valid

Held: Bigamy is a felony – mala in se – under the RPC which allows good faith and lack of criminal intent
is a valid defense. There is a difference between intent to commit and intent to perpetrate the act; hence,
his intent to a 2nd marriage does not equate to intent to commit bigamy.
The first element of bigamy is that there is a legal marriage. However, in the final decision of the RTC, the
marriage was void ab initio. The first element is not present, therefore Morigo must be acquitted.

Regarding, the favor for the accused. The courts are mandated to interpret penal laws in favor of the
accused. Every circumstance must be in favor of the presumption of innocence unless proven otherwise.
The validity of good faith and lack of intent is a mere moot and academic issue; obviously it’s valid.

Wherefore petition is granted. CA’s decision is reversed and set aside. Morigo is acquitted.

Art. 349 RPC: Bigamy – penalty of prision mayor

Elements of Bigamy:

1. the offender has been legally married;

2. the first marriage has not been legally dissolved, or in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent
spouse has not been judicially declared presumptively dead;
3. he contracts a subsequent marriage; and
4. the subsequent marriage would have been valid had it not been for the existence of the first.

Art. 15 CC: Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of
persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.

Art. 17 CC: The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be governed
by the laws of the country in which they are executed.

When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of the Republic of the
Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities established by Philippine laws shall be observed in their
execution.

Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public
order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments
promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.