During the 1990, Lucia returned into the Philippines and proposed so you can petition appellant to participate the girl into the Canada

During the 1990, Lucia returned into the Philippines and proposed so you can petition appellant to participate the girl into the Canada

MORIGO Vs. Someone

FACTS: Both offered 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 on Ontario Court (General Division) good petition for breakup up against appellant which was provided by judge 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.

Providing it argument so you can its analytical completion, for judge purposes, petitioner wasn’t hitched so you’re able to Lucia at the time he developed the marriage which have Maria Jececha

On September 21, 1993, accused submitted an ailment getting judicial statement regarding nullity away from relationships on the Regional Demonstration Courtroom out of Bohol, docketed due to the fact Civil Instance No. 6020. The complaint find (sic) among others, the newest statement from nullity out of accused’s relationship that have Lucia, on to the floor you to zero wedding party in fact happened.

ISSUE: Acquired Morigo have to have submitted report for the nullity away from his relationship which have Barrete in advance of his 2nd y situation.

RATIO: Underneath the idea regarding retroactivity off a marriage are announced emptiness ab initio, the two was indeed never ever married right from the start. This new package regarding marriage try null; it contains zero courtroom impact. The fresh new lifetime and validity of your very first matrimony being an extremely important element of the fresh new crime of bigamy, it is but analytical one a belief getting told you offense do not feel suffered where there is absolutely no basic relationship to speak from. The latest petitioner, need to, perforce be acquitted of your quick costs.

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 statement from nullity regarding an earlier marriage becomes necessary prior to a subsequent one can possibly end up being legally developed. One who enters a following wedding as opposed to very first getting instance judicial y. That it idea is applicable even if the earlier partnership was characterized by guidelines since the void.

They holds stressing in the event you to in Mercado, the initial relationship ended up being solemnized not merely just after, however, twice: very first just before a judge in which a wedding certification are properly awarded then once again six months later on just before a good priest in the religious rites. Fundamentally, about, the original marriage seemed to have went down, whether or not afterwards declared emptiness abdominal initio.

In the immediate instance, but not, no wedding at all is actually did of the a duly signed up solemnizing officer. Petitioner and you can Lucia Barrete just signed a wedding bargain to their own. New mere individual work from finalizing a marriage deal holds zero semblance to a legitimate matrimony and thus, needs zero judicial statement from nullity. For example act by yourself, in the place of far more, can not be deemed to compensate an evidently good matrimony by which petitioner is held liable for bigamy unless of course he basic protects a judicial report out of nullity ahead of the guy agreements a following relationships.

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. Under the activities of the introduce circumstances, i stored one petitioner has https://datingranking.net/by-ethnicity/ never 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.

Lasă un răspuns

Adresa ta de email nu va fi publicată. Câmpurile obligatorii sunt marcate cu *