FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236276. April 23, 2018.]
MA. FELISA M. GAVIOLA, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 23, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 236276 — Ma. Felisa M. Gaviola vs. People of the Philippines
Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time of thirty (30) days from expiration of the reglementary period within which to file her Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. EcTCAD
After a thorough review of the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in the Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to DENY the same for failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 36771 committed any reversible error in affirming the assailed July 22, 2014 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 122 in Criminal Case No. C-81251.
Petitioner submits that her first marriage with Leopoldo Melosantos III is void considering that she was forced to enter into it by her father. Thus, her consent was not freely given. She further avers that her second marriage with Melchor Elenzano, Jr. is likewise void since they have no marriage license.
Petitioner's contentions, aside from being mere rehash of her arguments before the RTC and CA, likewise raise factual issues which are not within the province of a Rule 45 petition. Both the RTC and the CA have already passed upon said allegations and found the same wanting in merit. We find no compelling reason to review said findings, much more to overturn them.
The CA correctly ruled that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the crime of bigamy, namely: (1) the offender has been legally married; (2) 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 or she contracted a second or subsequent marriage; and (4) the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. 1
Under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for bigamy is prision mayor, the range of which is from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years. In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the maximum of the penalty shall be in its medium period which has a range from eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the imposable penalty shall be prision correccional which is from six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. Thus, the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA is proper. SDHTEC
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the July 18, 2017 Decision and December 13, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CR No. 36771.
SO ORDERED." Sereno, C.J., on leave; De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2540 dated February 28, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Montanez vs. Cipriano, 697 Phil. 586, 595 (2012).