Without a solemnizing officer

LUCIO is a lucky guy.

Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barette were boardmates in Tagbilaran City, Bohol. Years later, they met again and became sweethearts. At that time, Lucia was already based in Canada and she promised Lucio to bring him to Canada once they are married.

Relying on such promise, Lucio signed a marriage contract with Lucia but they did not execute it before a solemnizing officer. Lucia then went back to Canada and two years later filed for divorce in Canada, in 1992.

Subsequently, Lucio married another woman in Bohol and, on Sept. 21, 1993, Lucio filed for judicial declaration of nullity of his marriage to Lucia, alleging that no marriage ceremony took place. On Oct. 19, 1993, Lucio was charged with bigamy in Bohol.

Lucio raised the defense that he cannot be convicted of bigamy because he took the second marriage in good faith believing that the Canada divorce was valid and that he never appeared before the solemnizing officer in his first marriage.

The Regional Trial Court convicted Lucio of bigamy. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the conviction was affirmed. He appealed to the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the civil case of nullity of marriage was granted by the RTC of Bohol and the judgment became final while the appeal of the bigamy conviction was in progress.

Is Lucio guilty of bigamy?

The Supreme Court ruled that Lucio is not guilty of bigamy. Although, as a general rule a person must first obtain a final judgment of nullity of the first marriage before he can contract a second marriage so that he cannot be convicted of bigamy, this rule does not apply in this particular case.

The reasons are two-fold. First, the first marriage was declared by the court as void from the very beginning because Lucio and Lucia never appeared before a solemnizing officer. They just signed a marriage contract. That was all. Apparently, the marriage was void and there was no marriage to talk about.

Second, when Lucio contracted the second marriage complete with all the ceremony and trappings of a marriage, he believed in good faith that the divorce in Canada already freed him of the bonds of the first “marriage”. Bigamy, being an offense punishable by the Revised Penal Code is a mala in se, and hence, good faith and lack of criminal intent are valid defenses.

Said the Supreme Court: “The law abhors an injustice and the Court is mandated to liberally construe a penal statute in favor of the presumption of innocence to ensure that justice is done. Under the circumstances of the present case, we held that petitioner has not committed bigamy.”

This is the ruling in Lucio Morigo vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 145226, February 06, 2004.

E-mail: joepallugna@yahoo.com