SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 255331. February 14, 2022.]
JOEMAN C. GALUNO, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and VILMA F. GALUNO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 14 February 2022 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 255331 (Joeman C. Galuno v. People of the Philippines and Vilma F. Galuno). — After a judicious review of the case, the Court resolves to deny the instant petition for review on certiorari1 for suffering procedural defects and lack of reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals (CA) in denying the appeal of Joeman C. Galuno (petitioner).
There is no reversible error in the Decision 2 dated August 18, 2020 and Resolution 3 dated January 14, 2021 of the CA in CA-G.R. CR No. 41587 that denied petitioner's appeal.
The elements of Bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) are as follows: (a) the offender has been legally married; (b) the marriage has not been legally dissolved; (c) he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and (d) the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. The felony is consummated upon the celebration of the second marriage or subsequent marriage. It is essential in the prosecution for Bigamy that the alleged second marriage, having all the essential requirements, would be valid were it not for the subsistence of the first marriage. 4
Petitioner argues that the prosecution was not able to prove the essential elements of the crime of Bigamy, specifically the fourth element thereof. He maintains that it is essential liar the prosecution to prove that the alleged second marriage has all the essential requisites that would make the second marriage valid were it not for the subsistence of the first marriage. 5
However, in Santiago v People 6 (Santiago), the Court ruled that "[j]urisprudence clearly requires that for the accused to be convicted of bigamy, the second or subsequent marriage must have all the essential requisites for validity. If the accused wants to raise the nullity of the marriage, he or she can do it as a matter of defense during the presentation of evidence in the trial proper of the criminal case."7
Further, in Pulido v. People 8 (Pulido), the Court ruled:
All told, we hold that in criminal prosecutions for bigamy, the accused can validly interpose the defense of a void ab initio marriage even without obtaining a judicial declaration of absolute nullity. Consequently, a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of the first and/or subsequent marriages obtained by the accused in a separate proceeding, irrespective of the time within which they are secured, is a valid defense in the criminal prosecution for bigamy. 9 (Emphasis supplied.)
Following the pronouncements in Santiago and Pulido, it is petitioner who has the burden to prove the nullity of the second marriage based on ground/s other than the subsistence of the first marriage. CAIHTE
In the absence of proof by petitioner that the second marriage was void on ground/s other than the subsistence of the first marriage, the Court finds no error in the finding of the CA that petitioner contracted a subsequent marriage while his prior marriage was still subsisting. 10
However, the penalty imposed by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, should be modified. Notably, the RTC imposed upon petitioner the penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.
The penalty for Bigamy under Article 349 of the RPC is prision mayor. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, 11 in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the maximum period is within the range of eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years which is the medium period of prision mayor. 12 The minimum period is the range of the penalty next lower to prision mayor, i.e., prision correccional. Thus, the minimum period should be within the range of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. Consequently, petitioner should be sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as the minimum period to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as the maximum period of imprisonment.
Lastly, the Court notes that the verification of the petition tailed to incorporate additional attestations as required under Section 4, Rule 7 of the 2019 Amended Rules of Court. 13
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 18, 2020 and the Resolution dated January 14, 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 41587 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that petitioner Joeman C. Galuno is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as the minimum period to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as the maximum period of imprisonment.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-16.
2.Id. at 17-22. Penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas with Associate Justices Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and Bonifacio S. Pascua, concurring.
3.Id. at 32-33.
4.Santiago v. People, 764 Phil. 128, 136 (2015), citing Montañez v. Cipriano, 697 Phil. 586, 595-596 (2012).
5.Rollo, pp. 9-12.
6.Santiago v. People, supra note 4.
7.Id. at 138.
8. G.R. No. 220149, July 27, 2021.
9.Id.
10.Rollo, p. 21.
11. Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law provides in part:
Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; x x x.
12.Lasanas v. People, 736 Phil. 735 (2014).
13.Rollo, p. 15.