Case Digest: Ronulo v.

People
RENE RONULO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 182438, 2 July 2014.
BRION, J.:
Joey Umadac and Claire Bingayen were scheduled to marry on 29 March
2003 at the Sta. Rosa Catholic Parish Church in Ilocos Norte. But on the
day of the wedding, the church's officiating priest refused to solemnize the
marriage because of lack of a marriage license.
With the couple and the guests already dressed for the wedding, they
headed to an Aglipayan Church. The Aglipayan priest, herein petitioner
Ronulo, conducted a ceremony on the same day where the couple took
each other as husband and wife in front of the guests. This was despite
Petitioner's knowledge of the couple's lack of marriage license.
Petitioner was eventually charged of violating Article 352 of the RPC for
performing an illegal marriage ceremony.
The MTC did not believe Petitioner's defense that what he did was an act
of blessing and was not tantamount to solemnization of marriage and was
found guilty.
The decision was affirmed by both the RTC and the CA.
ISSUE: W/N Petitioner committed an illegal marriage.
RULING: Yes.
Article 352 of the RPC penalizes an authorized solemnizing officer who
shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage ceremony. The elements of

this crime are:

authority of the solemnizing officer; and

his performance of an illegal marriage ceremony.

The first element is present since Petitioner himself admitted that he has
authority to solemnize a marriage.

1. The second element is present since the alleged "blessing" by Petitioner is

tantamount to the performance of an illegal marriage ceremony.
1. There is no prescribed form or rite for the solemnization of a marriage.
However, Article 6 of the Family Code provides that it shall be necessary:
1.
for the contracting parties to appear personally before the solemnizing
officer; and
2.

declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age that
they take each other as husband and wife.
3. The first requirement is present since petitioner admitted to it. The second
requirement is likewise present since the prosecution, through the
testimony of its witnesses, proved that the contracting parties personally
declared that they take each other as husband and wife.
1. The penalty for violating Article 352 of the RPC is in accordance with the
provision of the Marriage Law, specifically Article 44, which states that:
Section 44. General Penal Clause Any violation of any provision of this
Act not specifically penalized, or of the regulations to be promulgated by
the proper authorities, shall be punished by a fine of not more than two
hundred pesos or by imprisonment for not more than one month, or both,
in the discretion of the court.
1. As such, Petitioner was held guilty of violating Article 352 and was fined
P200 as penalty.