For the 1990, Lucia came back to your Philippines and you will suggested to petition appellant to join this lady within the Canada

For the 1990, Lucia came back to your Philippines and you will suggested to petition appellant to join this lady within the Canada

MORIGO Versus. Somebody

FACTS: Each other wanted to wed, thus they were married on August 30, 1990 at the Iglesia de Filipina Nacionalat Catagdaan, Pilar, Bohol.

On August 19, 1991, Lucia filed with the Ontario Judge (Standard Section) an excellent petition to have divorce case facing appellant which was provided by the legal on January 17, 1992 and to take effect on February 17, 1992.

On October 4, 1992, appellant Lucio Morigo married Maria Jececha Lumbago at the Virgen sa Barangay Parish, Tagbilaran City, Bohol.

Providing which dispute to help you their analytical completion, to possess courtroom aim, petitioner was not hitched in order to Lucia during the time he developed the marriage having Maria Jececha

On September 21, 1993, implicated recorded an ailment having official statement of nullity off marriage throughout the Local Demonstration Court out of Bohol, docketed because Municipal Circumstances No. 6020. The new grievance search (sic) among others, brand new declaration from nullity away from accused’s marriage with Lucia, on to the floor you to no marriage service actually occurred.

ISSUE: Acquired Morigo should have filed statement on nullity regarding their relationships that have Barrete before their next y instance.

RATIO: In principle out-of retroactivity out of a wedding becoming proclaimed emptiness abdominal initio, the two was basically never hitched from the beginning. New deal out-of matrimony was null; they holds zero courtroom impact. New existence plus the validity of the earliest relationship being a keen very important part of the latest crime out-of bigamy, it is but logical that a conviction getting told you crime never become sustained in which there is no basic wedding to dicuss off. The brand new petitioner, need, perforce end up being acquitted of one’s instantaneous fees.

The present case is analogous to, but must be distinguished from Mercado v. Tan . . In the latter case, the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage was likewise obtained after the second marriage was already celebrated. We held therein that:

An official report of nullity away from a past marriage is necessary in advance of a subsequent you can feel legitimately contracted. Individual who enters a subsequent wedding as opposed to first getting such as for instance official y. So it concept can be applied even when the before partnership is described as regulations due to the fact void.

It holds worrying even if one to from inside the Negocio, the original relationship is solemnized not simply immediately after, but twice: earliest ahead of a legal where a wedding certificate is actually duly granted after which again half a year after ahead of a beneficial priest into the religious rites. Fundamentally, at the least, the initial marriage appeared to has actually went down, no matter if later on stated void ab initio.

About instant case, not, zero wedding service after all is actually performed from the a duly licensed solemnizing officer. Petitioner and you may Lucia Barrete simply finalized a marriage contract to their very own. The simple private operate away from finalizing a wedding contract carries no semblance to help you a legitimate matrimony which means that, requires no official declaration of nullity. Such as act by yourself, in place of even more, can’t be considered so you can compensate an evidently valid relationships whereby petitioner is held liable for bigamy unless he very first obtains an official report out-of nullity just before the guy deals a subsequent relationship.

The law abhors an injustice and the Court is mandated to liberally construe a penal statute in favor of an accused and weigh every circumstance in favor of the presumption of innocence to ensure that justice is done. Within the facts of one’s introduce situation, i held one petitioner hasn’t the time bigamy. Further, we also find that we need not tarry on the issue of the validity of his defense of good faith or lack of criminal intent, which is now moot and academic.