In 1990, Lucia came back for the Philippines and you may recommended to help you petition appellant to become listed on the woman inside the Canada

MORIGO Vs. Individuals

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

On August 19, 1991, Lucia registered toward Ontario Courtroom (Standard Department) good petition having divorce case against appellant which was granted because of the legal on January 17, 1992 and to take effect on February 17, 1992.

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

On September 21, 1993, accused recorded a problem to have judicial report out-of nullity out-of marriage throughout the Local Demonstration Courtroom from Bohol, docketed once the Municipal Instance Zero. 6020. The brand new complaint find (sic) yet others, the latest statement away from nullity of accused’s relationships having Lucia, on to the ground that zero wedding ceremony in reality happened.

ISSUE: Acquired Morigo need filed declaration into nullity out-of his relationship with Barrete ahead of his 2nd y case.

RATIO: Within the idea away from retroactivity regarding a marriage being proclaimed emptiness abdominal initio, both had been never ever partnered from the beginning. The new contract out of marriage try null; they contains zero judge effect. Providing this dispute so you’re able to its logical end, getting legal aim, petitioner wasn’t married in order to Lucia at the time he contracted the wedding with Maria Jececha. New lives together with validity of basic relationships getting an enthusiastic extremely important section of new crime out-of bigamy, it’s but logical you to definitely a belief having told you offense dont end up being suffered in which there is absolutely no basic matrimony to dicuss off. The fresh new petitioner, need certainly to, perforce become acquitted of immediate charges.

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:

A judicial statement away from nullity out of a past marriage is required prior to a subsequent it’s possible to end up being legally developed. It principle applies even if the earlier union try described as guidelines since the void.

It contains worrying no matter if one to when you look at the Mercado, the first wedding ended up best hookup bar Melbourne being solemnized not simply after, but double: earliest in advance of a court where a wedding certificate is actually properly awarded and once again six months afterwards in advance of a great priest within the spiritual rites. Evidently, about, the original relationships seemed to enjoys transpired, regardless if later declared emptiness abdominal initio.

Individual that enters a following relationship instead first obtaining for example official y

About instant circumstances, yet not, zero wedding ceremony whatsoever is actually did because of the a properly signed up solemnizing manager. Petitioner and you will Lucia Barrete merely closed a wedding bargain on their individual. This new simple private operate out of finalizing a wedding package contains no semblance so you’re able to a valid relationships which means that, demands zero judicial declaration away from nullity. Particularly operate alone, without a whole lot more, cannot be deemed to make-up a basically legitimate wedding wherein petitioner could be stored accountable for bigamy unless of course he basic obtains a judicial statement out-of nullity in advance of he agreements a subsequent matrimony.

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. Underneath the affairs of your own expose instance, we held that petitioner has not yet the full 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.