MA. FE IMELDA LAPIRA Y TUNGOL, PETITIONER, VS. JIMMY FARISCAL AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Lapira versus Fariscal

The Case

This is the case of Lapira versus Fariscal, a criminal prosecution for bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. Ma. Fe Imelda Lapira y Tungol, whom we shall call Imelda, was charged with contracting a second marriage to Jimmy Fariscal on April 17, 2001, while her earlier marriage to a Japanese national, Takahiko Sato, celebrated on August 3, 2000 in Meycauayan, Bulacan, was still valid and subsisting. Imelda's defense is that the first marriage was void from the beginning for lack of a marriage license, and that she may raise that nullity in the criminal case itself without first securing a judicial declaration of nullity. The case matters because it applies the Court's recent abandonment of the old rule requiring a prior judicial declaration of nullity before a void marriage may be pleaded as a defense to bigamy, and because it shows how a marriage certificate, though a public document, may be rebutted by a certification from the local civil registrar.

Procedural History

After the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga found probable cause, an Information for bigamy was filed on May 15, 2008 before the Regional Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga, Branch 51. At arraignment, Imelda pleaded not guilty. After the prosecution rested, she filed a demurrer to evidence, which the trial court denied, so she presented her own witnesses. In its Decision dated October 26, 2015, the trial court found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt, holding that she was still married to Takahiko when she married Jimmy, that there was no showing the first marriage had been legally dissolved, and that she could not unilaterally declare her first marriage invalid to avoid prosecution.

Imelda appealed to the Court of Appeals. In its Decision dated January 16, 2017, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that all the elements of bigamy were proven and that, following the Vitangcol case, her claim that the first marriage was void for lack of a marriage license could not prevail because that marriage had not been judicially declared void before the second marriage. The Court of Appeals denied her motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated August 10, 2017.

Imelda then filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court. The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, argued that the petition raised questions of fact and that the conviction should stand. Jimmy filed a letter manifesting that he could not afford counsel. The Court issued a resolution requiring the parties to manifest any subsequent developments, and Imelda, in her compliance, invoked the Court's ruling in the Pulido case.

Facts

On August 3, 2000, a marriage between Imelda and Takahiko Sato was purportedly celebrated in Meycauayan, Bulacan, solemnized by Reverend Remigio Cabading. Imelda insists this was a sham, arranged only to facilitate her entry into Japan. She claims she signed a blank piece of bond paper in Makati City, with neither Takahiko nor the solemnizing officer present, and that her sister later brought the paper to Japan for Takahiko's signature. She never applied for a marriage license, and she lived with her sister in Japan, not with Takahiko.

On April 17, 2001, Imelda married Jimmy Fariscal in a civil ceremony officiated by the Municipal Mayor of Guagua, Pampanga. They had one child. In November 2004, Imelda went to Japan to work, and Jimmy lost communication with her. In July 2006, she reappeared, and a bitter dispute over the custody of their child ensued.

Upon verification with the Office of the Civil Registrar General, Jimmy discovered the earlier marriage to Takahiko. He filed a complaint for bigamy, leading to the Information. At trial, the testimony of Reverend Cabading was stricken from the record because he failed to appear for cross-examination. The defense presented the Local Civil Registrar of Imus, Cavite, Violeta Sañez, who confirmed that her office had no record of any application for a marriage license by Takahiko Sato and Imelda Lapira. A certification dated January 14, 2009 from that office states that no such application exists, although the records for the year 2000 remain intact in its archives.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused in a criminal prosecution for bigamy may raise the defense that the first marriage is void from the beginning without a prior judicial declaration of absolute nullity.
• Whether or not the certification of the local civil registrar that no marriage license was issued is sufficient to rebut the presumption of regularity of the marriage certificate and to establish reasonable doubt as to the existence of a prior valid marriage.
• Whether or not Imelda is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.

Applicable Provisions

Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes bigamy:

Article 349. Bigamy. The penalty of prisión mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings.

This is the crime charged, and its elements include a prior valid marriage, which the accused may dispute.

Article 3 of the Family Code identifies the formal requisites of marriage, including the marriage license:

Article 3. The formal requisites of marriage are: (1) Authority of the solemnizing officer; (2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for 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.

A valid marriage license is therefore a formal requisite, and its absence affects the validity of the marriage.

Article 4 of the Family Code states the effect of the absence of requisites:

Article 4. The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35(2).

This is the basis for Imelda's claim that her first marriage was void from the beginning.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in favor of Imelda. Applying its ruling in the Pulido case, the Court held that a judicial declaration of absolute nullity is not necessary to prove a void prior marriage in a bigamy case, and that such a declaration, whenever secured, is a valid defense. The Court explained that Article 40 of the Family Code did not amend Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code and did not deny the accused the right to collaterally attack a void marriage in the criminal prosecution. It stressed that penal statutes are construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused, and that requiring a prior declaration would interpret Article 349 too liberally in favor of the State and too strictly against the accused.

On the second issue, the Court also ruled for Imelda. It reiterated that one of the essential elements of bigamy is a prior valid marriage, and that if the supposed first marriage was void from the beginning, it is inexistent and an element of the felony is lacking. Following the Cariaga case, the Court held that the absence of a marriage license must be apparent on the marriage contract or supported by a certification from the local civil registrar that no license was issued. The January 14, 2009 certification satisfied this requirement. Following the Genio case, the Court held that this certification rebutted the presumption of regularity of the marriage certificate, so that the certificate could no longer be presumed true and the burden shifted back to the prosecution, which presented no other proof of the first marriage.

On the third issue, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of all the elements of bigamy beyond reasonable doubt. The acquittal of Imelda on the ground of reasonable doubt was therefore warranted.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, a judicial declaration of absolute nullity is not necessary before an accused in a bigamy case may raise the defense that the first or subsequent marriage is void from the beginning; the accused may collaterally attack the void marriage in the criminal prosecution itself. Second, this rule applies only to void from the beginning marriages; if the first marriage is merely voidable, it is considered valid and subsisting when the second marriage is contracted, and the crime of bigamy is consummated. Third, one of the essential elements of bigamy under Article 349 is a prior valid marriage; if the first marriage is void from the beginning, that element is lacking and acquittal follows. Fourth, the absence of a marriage license, a formal requisite under Article 3 of the Family Code, renders the marriage void from the beginning under Article 4, and may be shown by a certification from the local civil registrar that no license was issued. Fifth, such a certification rebuts the presumption of regularity of a marriage certificate, and once rebutted, the prosecution must prove the elements of bigamy beyond reasonable doubt with other evidence.

Disposition

The petition was granted, the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the trial court were reversed and set aside, and Imelda was acquitted of bigamy on the ground of reasonable doubt, with entry of judgment ordered immediately.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a void from the beginning marriage may be raised as a defense in a bigamy case even without a prior judicial declaration of nullity, because a prior valid marriage is an essential element of the crime. Examiners like to use this case to test the distinction between void and voidable marriages in bigamy, and the rebuttal of the presumption of regularity of a marriage certificate by a local civil registrar's certification.