Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
MEMORANDUM HEADING
TO: Senior Partner
FROM:
DATE: April 12, 2019
RE: Beru v. Owen - Bigamy Case; Defenses in Bigamy
STATEMENT OF THE ASSIGNMENT
This is in regards to the case of Beru, who has been
accused of bigamy. This paper shows the facts of the case,
the issues culled from the facts, and the defense of Beru for
the crime that was allegedly committed.
FACTS
Our client Beru is being sued by her husband Owen for
bigamy. It is a fact that in 2010, Beru was party to a simulated
marriage with her then boyfriend Lando. At the time, Lando
had impregnated another woman named Corde, to
discourage her from pursuing Lando, Lando claimed that he
was already married by showing her the marriage contract
signed by Beru, who signed the same only for the purpose of
discouraging Corde. In 2012, Beru married her husband
Owen. In 2018, Owen filed a bigamy case against Beru. It was
only after this case was filed that Beru found out Lando had
registered their simulated marriage contract, this was done
without the knowledge of Beru, much less consent.
ISSUE/QUESTION PRESENTED
1) Whether under the civil code, is a simulated marriage
contract proof of a marriage?
2) Whether under the revised penal code, can a woman who
entered a marriage without a legal first marriage, commit
bigamy?
BRIEF ANSWER
1) No, because the essential requisites of a valid marriage has
not been complied with.
Legal Writing
2) No, because the essential requisites for the crime of
bigamy is not present.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
1) The simulated marriage contract is not proof of marriage.
The simulated marriage contract signed by Beru was a
contract between her and Lando only and it bears no legal
effect. It is of note that for a marriage to be valid, the rule of
law must be followed.
Article 2. No marriage shall be valid, unless these
essential requisites are present:
a) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a
male and a female; and
b) Consent freely given in the presence of the
solemnizing officer.1
The requisite of consent freely given as stipulated in the
law is wanting in this case. Consent must also be conscious
or intelligent, in that the parties must be capable of
intelligently understanding the nature of, and both the
beneficial or unfavorable consequences of their act.2 Beru
was under the impression that the marriage was simulated,
in other words, the consent was for a simulated marriage not
an actual one. The law further provides formal requisites of
marriage reproduced below.
Article 3. The formal requisites of marriage are:
1) Authority of a solemnizing officer;
2) A valid marriage license except in 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.3
1
CIVIL CODE OF THE Ph., Art. 2.
2
Melencio S. Sta. Maria, Jr., Persons and Family Relations Law, (Quezon City, Philippines:
Rex Printing Company, Inc., 2010), Fifth Edition, p. 121.
3
CIVIL CODE OF THE Ph., Art. 3.
Legal Writing
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).4
It is obvious from the facts of the case that no marriage
license was procured, no marriage ceremony took place, nor
was there even a solemnizing officer to officiate the marriage.
It is even more obvious that there was no intent to be
married, Beru and Lando did not even live together as
husband and wife nor did they purport themselves to be.
The contract, although registered, bears no legal effect.
Those that are simulated, are by law, deemed inexistent as
provided for in the law of contracts.
Art. 1409. The following contracts are inexistent and void
from the beginning:
XXX XXX X X X
(2) Those which are absolutely simulated or fictitious;5
XXX XXX X X X
Furthermore, in People v. Morigo,6 where two childhood
sweethearts signed a marriage contract on their own and
nothing more, was not guilty of bigamy for entering another
marriage thereafter. The Supreme Court declared:
“..the mere private act of signing a marriage contract bears
no semblance to a valid marriage and thus, needs no
judicial declaration of nullity. Such act alone, without more,
cannot be deemed to constitute an ostensibly valid
marriage for which petitioner might be held liable for
bigamy unless he first secures a judicial declaration of
nullity before he contracts a subsequent marriage.”
It cannot be said that the marriage is void ab initio,
since there was no marriage to begin with. Beru was free to
enter into a marriage with Owen. Lacking the essential
requisites of a valid marriage, the marriage did not in fact
exist. Otherwise stated, Beru was never married to Lando.
4
CIVIL CODE OF THE Ph., Art. 4.
5
CIVIL CODE OF THE Ph., Art. 1409.
6
Morigo v. People, G.R. No. 145226, (Feb. 6, 2004).
Legal Writing
2) The case for Bigamy cannot prosper when there exists
only one marriage.
Art. 349. Bigamy. — The penalty of prision 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.7
The elements of the crime of bigamy as defined in the
Revised Penal Code are as follows: 1) that the offender has
been legally married; 2) that the marriage has not been
legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the
absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to
the Civil Code; 3) that he contracts a second or subsequent
marriage; 4) that the subsequent marriage has all the
essential requisites for validity.8
The facts of the case of Beru does not concur with the
requisite elements of bigamy. In the first place, there was no
marriage prior to to Beru’s marriage to Owen. We have
established that Beru was free to enter into a marriage with
Owen as Beru did not have any legal impediments, since the
alleged marriage of Beru and Lando did not even exist.
Absent a legal first marriage, a requisite essential to the
crime of bigamy, it is not possible for the crime of bigamy to
have been committed here.
COUNTER ARGUMENT
In Lasanas v. People,9 the Supreme Court held that any
person who contracts a second marriage without first having
a judicial declaration of the nullity of his or her first marriage,
albeit on its face void and inexistent for lack of a marriage
license, is guilty of bigamy as defined and penalized by
Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.
What is punished by Article 349 is the act of contracting
a subsequent marriage before the former marriage had been
7
THE REVISED PENAL CODE OF THE Ph., Art. 349.
8
Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis, G.R. No. 138509, (Jul. 31, 2000).
9
Lasanas v. People, G.R. No. 159031, (Jun. 23, 2014).
Legal Writing
dissolved.10 So although the marriage of Beru to Lando was
void on its face, it does not exempt Beru from the liability of
bigamy. The nullity of their marriage is not a defense in the
bigamy charge.
Beru should have legally dissolved the marriage to
Lando pursuant to Article 40 of the Civil Code, before
entering into the marriage with Owen. Since Beru has failed
in this regard, all elements of the crime of bigamy are met.
Beru is guilty of the crime charged.
Art. 40. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be
invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a a
final judgement declaring such previous marriage void.11
RESPONSE TO COUNTER ARGUMENT
Beru could not possibly be bound by Article 40 of the
Civil Code. There was no knowledge of the registration of the
simulated marriage contract, hence, there was no reason to
have the marriage declared void ab initio. It should be noted
that penal laws are construed liberally in favor of the accused.
Beru acted in good faith when the marriage with Owen was
entered into. This may free the accused of criminal liability.
There was no intent to commit such grave a wrong. Beru
cannot be held guilty of the crime of bigamy.
CONCLUSION
Beru’s case is a strong one and should be pursued, for
the crime of bigamy cannot prosper absent the necessary
elements. The prosecution’s reliance on a marriage contract
entered into by Beru and Lando on their own is misplaced. It
would be an absurd application of the law, for a person to
sign a contract in jest that bears no legal effect, and then
later act as though it does and call it criminal. Beru was never
Lando’s wife, and Lando was never Beru’s husband. The
marriage contract presented by the prosecution holds no
legal effect.
10
Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code Book Two, (Quezon City, Philippines: Rex Printing
Company, Inc., 2017), Nineteenth Edition, p. 1009.
11
CIVIL CODE OF THE Ph., Art. 40.
Legal Writing
It would be wise to call on Lando as a witness to attest
to the facts provided for by Beru. The testimony of Lando will
bear a lot of weight, when it corroborates the testimony of
Beru. A testimony from the Local Civil Registrar will also be
useful to our defense when it is proved that the marriage
contract bears no marriage license number. We should push
for acquittal.