People v. Ong y Canag

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 202130. April 7, 2014.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ERWIN ONG Y CANAG, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated April 7, 2014which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 202130 (People of the Philippines v. Erwin Ong Y Canag). — Before this Court is an appeal from the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 1 dated 27 July 2011, which affirmed the Decision 2 dated 30 July 2007 issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City, Branch 51, finding appellant guilty of bigamy.

Briefly, the established facts are as follows: On 23 April 2001, appellant wed May Joan Erasmo Ong (Erasmo) in a civil ceremony presided by Municipal Trial Court Judge Ronaldo V. Balgos in Himamaylan, Negros Occidental. After four months of tumultuous albeit short-lived wedded union, appellant left their conjugal dwelling to live with his mistress. As a result, Erasmo moved back to her parents' house and eventually left for work in Dubai in May 2002. Meanwhile, appellant and his mistress converted to Islam in June 2002, then they got married in Muslim rites presided by Imam Ibrahim Usman on 08 July 2002. On 17 August 2002, 3 appellant and his Muslim wife were married once more in a civil ceremony presided by Municipal Trial Court in Cities Judge Alfredo Hilario in Bacolod City. 4

Consequently, appellant was charged with bigamy. He pleaded not guilty during arraignment. His defense, during trial, was exemption from the coverage of the penal law on bigamy by virtue of Art. 180 of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines (PD No. 1083). 5 He maintained that he could not be prosecuted for bigamy because he had converted to Islam before contracting a subsequent marriage, notwithstanding the presence of all the elements of the crime of bigamy in his case. 6

The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of four (4) years and two (2) months as minimum to nine (9) years as maximum. It ruled that all the elements of bigamy had been proven by the prosecution and even admitted by appellant in his Memorandum. The trial court noted that there was no evidence at all that his first marriage had been legally dissolved prior to his subsequent marriage. Thus, his conversion to Islam before his second marriage was immaterial because, under the Family Code, his first marriage was still valid and subsisting when he contracted his second marriage. Further, it ruled that P.D. No. 1083 did not govern the incidents of the 23 April 2001 marriage, because that law applies only to marriages in which one or two parties are Muslims. 7 Finally, the trial court ruled that any doubt on appellant's liability for bigamy was completely eradicated with the celebration of his third marriage, since it was clearly contracted under civil ceremonies without his first civil marriage being legally dissolved. 8

On appeal, the CA sustained the findings of the RTC and affirmed the latter's Decision in toto.9 The CA ruled that all that was required for the charge of bigamy to prosper was that the first marriage was subsisting when the second one was contracted. Appellant, thus, committed bigamy the moment he contracted his subsequent marriage without his first marriage being judicially declared null and void. It also ruled that appellant could not validly invoke the provisions of P.D. No. 1083 granting exemption from the penal laws on bigamy, because he was still a Christian when he contracted his first marriage with a fellow Christian. 10CaAcSE

The sole issue presented before the Court is whether appellant is liable for the crime of bigamy.

After a careful review of the records of this case, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the CA Decision. The circumstances in this case clearly satisfy all the elements of the crime of bigamy. 11 Appellant contracted a subsequent marriage under Muslim rites with a fellow Muslim convert, and yet again another marriage with the same partner in a civil ceremony without his first marriage being legally dissolved. In his Brief before the CA, 12 appellant openly admitted all three marriages. He asserted, however, that as a Filipino-Muslim he could not be convicted of bigamy; and that in his subsequent marriages, he was under the belief that these were allowed under Islam faith and culture. 13 This theory is trite as it is wrong. In Nollora, Jr. v. People, 14 the Court had ruled upon a similar issue and rejected exactly the same defense raised by appellant herein. The standing rule is that Art. 180 of P.D. No. 1083 does not bar a prosecution for bigamy when the first marriage was not conducted in accordance with Muslim law. Simply, the reason is that Art. 13 (2) of the same law clearly states: "In case of a marriage between a Muslim and a non-Muslim, solemnized not in accordance with Muslim law or this Code, the [Family Code of the Philippines, or Executive Order No. 209, in lieu of the Civil Code of the Philippines), shall apply." 15CHcESa

WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals Decision dated 27 July 2011 in CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 00805 affirming the conviction of appellant Erwin Ong is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 4-13; penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando with Associate Justices Edgardo L. delos Santos and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring.

2. CA rollo, pp. 24-34; penned by Judge Anita G. Chua.

3. Id. at 74.

4. Id. at 26-27.

5. Art. 180. Law applicable. — The provisions of the Revised Penal Code relative to the crime of bigamy shall not apply to a person married in accordance with the provisions of this Code or, before its effectivity, under Muslim law.

6. CA rollo, p. 29.

7. Id. at 31-32.

8. Id. at 34.

9. Rollo, p. 13.

10. Id. at 8-9.

11. REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 349.

12. CA rollo, pp. 45-58.

13. Id. at 53-54.

14. G.R. No. 191425, 7 September 2011, 657 SCRA 330.

15. Supra note 7.