Consummated crime

Is a person still liable for the crime of bigamy despite the fact that after contracting the second marriage, his first marriage has been judicially declared null and void? This is the question raised and resolved in the case of Charlie.

Charlie has been civilly married to Tina for almost 9 years. Since they got married before a Judge of a Metropolitan Trial Court of Muntinlupa City on Oct. 25, 1992, Tina left to work abroad and would only come home to the Philippines for vacations. Such situation apparently led Charlie into the arms of another woman, Nena whom he courted and eventually married on Nov. 12, 2001 in Meycauayan, Bulacan according to the rites of a Protestant Church.

So when Tina went home for a vacation in 2002, she was informed of such marriage between Charlie and Nena. To verify the information, she went to the National Statistics Office and secured a copy of the marriage certificate confirming the marriage of Charlie and Nena. But since she was working abroad, she had no time to immediately take any steps against Charlie.

It was only on March 14, 2006, when Tina’s uncle filed before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Malolos, a complaint accusing Charlie of committing the crime of bigamy. And on May 7, 2006, Charlie was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulacan with bigamy defined and penalized under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code as amended.

It turned out however that Charlie had also filed an action before the RTC of Caloocan City for the declaration of nullity of his marriage to Tina on the ground of the latter’s psychological incapacity to comply with her essential marital obligation. The RTC of Caloocan has already rendered a decision declaring his marriage to Tina null and void which became final on May 28, 2006.

Using this final judgment declaring his first marriage to Tina null and void, Charlie claimed that there is no bigamy to speak of because there is in effect no such first marriage to Tina. He tried to differentiate between a previously valid but voidable marriage and a marriage null and void from the beginning (ab initio) and contended that while a voidable marriage requires a judicial dissolution before one can validly contract a second marriage, a void marriage need not be judicially determined.

Opinion ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1

But the RTC nevertheless convicted Charlie of the crime of bigamy and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 4 years, 2 months and 1 day, minimum to 6 years and 1 day as maximum. Was the trial court correct?

Yes. A judicial declaration of absolute nullity of a previous marriage is necessary before a person can contract a second marriage. Parties to a marriage should not be allowed to assume that their marriage is void even if such be the fact but must first secure a judicial declaration of the nullity of that marriage before they can be allowed to marry again.

In this case, Charlie legally married Tina on Oct. 25, 1992. He contracted a second and subsequent marriage with Nena on Nov. 12, 2001. At the time of his second marriage to Nena, his first marriage to Tina was still legally subsisting. The decision declaring his first marriage to Tina became final only on May 28, 2006 or about 5 years after his second marriage to Nena. It is evident therefore that he has committed the crime charged. Criminal culpability attaches to the offender upon commission of the offense.

If Charlie’s contention will be allowed, a person who commits bigamy can simply evade prosecution or conviction by immediately filing a petition for declaration of nullity of his earlier marriage and hope that a favorable decision is rendered therein before anyone institutes a complaint against him or before he is convicted of the crime charged (Teves vs. People, et. al. G.R. 18775, August 24, 2011, 656 SCRA 307).

* * *

E-mail: attyjosesison@gmail.com

A LAW EACH DAY(KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY) By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) 

Illegitimate child has to use mother’s surname

Dear PAO,
I recently went to the DFA office to apply for a passport and was declined. I was told that I still need to secure an affidavit to use my father’s surname. I got really confused because although I have my mother’s surname on my birth certificate, I’ve been using my father’s surname ever since, and that was the first time someone told me that.

My parents only got married seven years after I was born. My father was able to secure an Affidavit of Admission of Paternity and an Affidavit for Delayed Registration of Birth. Both of these documents were attached to my birth certificate. Are these documents enough proofs that I am a legitimate child, and have the right to bear my father’s surname? What should I do regarding these concerns?
Christine

Dear Christine,
The law is clear that a child born out of wedlock is illegitimate. An illegitimate child shall use the surname of his/her mother. Nevertheless, he/she may use the surname of his/her father, provided he/she was acknowledged by the latter (Article 176, Family Code of the Philippines as amended by Republic Act No. 9255).

Based on your narration, it is clear that you were an illegitimate child when you were born, since your parents were yet to marry each other at the time and were only able to do so seven years later. Being illegitimate, you shall bear the surname of your mother, but you may use the surname of your father provided that you were recognized by the latter as his child.

Perhaps, this was explained to you at the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), when you tried to obtain a passport there. To formally use the surname of your father under the law, you have to register with the Office of the Local Civil Registrar where your Certificate of Live Birth is registered, the fact that you were expressly recognized by your father, together with the Affidavit to Use the Surname of the Father, among other things.

But the subsequent marriage of your parents, assuming that they have no legal impediment to marry each other during the time that you were conceived up to the time that they were married, through the process of legitimation, changed your status from illegitimate to legitimated.

By way of legitimation, an illegitimate child, by operation of law is considered legitimate, by virtue of the subsequent marriage of his/her parents, granting that during the period of his/her conception until the time of the said marriage, his/her parents had no legal impediment to marry. This is according to Articles 177 and 178 of the Family Code of the Philippines as amended by Republic Act 9858, which provides:

“Article 177. Children conceived and born outside of wedlock of parents who, at the time of the conception of the former, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other, or were so disqualified only because either or both of them were below eighteen (18) years of age, may be legitimated.

“Art. 178. Legitimation shall take place by a subsequent valid marriage between parents. The annulment of a voidable marriage shall not affect the legitimation.”

Being legitimated, you are entitled to all the rights and privileges enjoyed by a legitimate child and the same shall retroact to the time of your birth. One of such rights is to bear the surname of your father (Articles 174(1), 179 and 180, Family Code of the Philippines).

To register your subsequent legitimation, all you have to do is to visit the Office of the Local Civil Registrar where your Certificate of Live Birth is registered. You just have to comply with all the requirements and follow the procedure established for the purpose. Once registered, you may now officially use the surname of your father.

Again, we find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed or elaborated.

We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net

The woman without a country?

A petition to disqualify Grace Poe has been lodged by my pal, Dean Amado Valdez, with whom I am normally in agreement — and am I surprised when we differ. He contends that the Senator is not qualified in the 2016 presidential elections on the following grounds:

1. Assuming that Grace Poe was a natural-born citizen, she lost her status as natural-born when she

Renounced her Filipino citizenship in 2001 to become an American citizen. She never regained her natural born status. At best, she is a repatriated Filipino citizen under RA 9225.

It seems to me being a natural-born Filipino is a one-time permanent thing. As Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion taught us in senior law, a natural-born Filipino “is one born a Filipino.” One is born only once. That concept, to me, is unchanging. One is a natural-born Pinoy, Martian or Manchurian Candidate. Losing one’s natural-born status seems an impossibility, like losing my birthplace of Mauban, Quezon, my sainted mother, my birth date, etc. Immutable. We cannot square the circle.

2. She has not completed her ten-year residency reckoned, at the earliest, from july, 2006 when she re-acquired her Filipino citizenship, and at the latest on 20 october 2010 when she renounced her American citizenship.

Residence was required to make sure one was aware of what was going on in the community and the country. For a caring Pinoy, that is now the easiest thing to do, without being physically present. We are talking of only a few months and therefore the issue has de minimis significance, if at all. The intent of the law is to exclude a stranger and a newcomer, unacquainted with the conditions and needs of the community and not identified with the latter. That may well be but it represents the best thinking of a jurassic era.

When I was in Rizal High, I would walk two or three kilometers for lunch at home and to catch the one o’clock Sports Parade of Willie Hernandez, to find out how the New York Yankees had fared the day before. Today we can watch sports events world-wide, live. And edifying presidential debates.

I chat with my family at home and then I am told my daughter Lara, with a doctorate in philosophy – children’s studies, now teaching tenure-track in New York, is there, on screen, to chat with her siblings here, live. There is the I-Pod, computer, cellphones, etc.
that make it possible for concerned Pinoys abroad who care to follow daily what goes on here.

Art. 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees against statelessness. Art. 25 says to care for love children. In Makati Elementary, we read about Philip Nolan, The Man Without a Country. Was Grace ever The Woman Without a Country?

I may sound Emotionalized. I prefer Passionate, for all my life I have preferred to be on the side of the one being dumped on and kicked around. Do we kick around a Poe-Lot who comes to this world with two strikes against him/her? Underdogs, weeping alone, my kind of people, for whom I have worked, prayed and fought with that kind of passion that whips the blood.

I don’t want the unelected Commission on Elections and the unelected Supreme Court ruling on the tough issue. Not even the partly elected Senate Electoral Tribunal, whose widely-admired Chair, Justice Tony Carpio, inexplicably and uncharacteristically prejudged Grace’s case on Day One, without waiting for all the arguments to be in, leaving him no wiggle room. He should have waited until after all the evidence and arguments are in.

The choice of who will lead the country is the quintessential political question falling under its second kind.

The concept of “political question” is limited to two: 1) when the matter is exclusively left to a body to decide, like disorderly behavior of a member of Congress for something said say, in a privilege speech; it may be questioned there but not in any other place, such as the courts; or 2) when it is left to the people to decide in their sovereign capacity.

“But where the matter falls under the discretion of another department or especially the people themselves, the decision reached is in the category of a political question and consequently may not be the subject of judicial review.” I. Cruz and C. Cruz, Phil. Political Law 140 (2014).

I may be wrong but I should not have to be blamed for something drilled in me by Chief Justice Concepcion in San Beda and Prof. Albert Sacks in Harvard Law and adopted by Justice Isagani Cruz and his son, Carlo.

Let the sovereign people, the bosses, decide in a society that would be humane under our constitutional preamble.

Am I voting for Grace? Decency I always associate with FPJ and Susan. Osmosis should work and result in Designer Genes.

But, in fact, I have not made up my mind. It’s just that I don’t want any foundling being dumped on and kicked around. Art. 24 of the Civil Code says the system must be vigilant in protecting the handicapped, and ang putok sa buho, which Shakespeare lamented in King Lear, “Why bastard? wherefore base” – merits sympathy, understanding and compassion.

Campaign against her but let her be among the cards to be dealt our people in 2016.

source:  Manila Times Column by RENE SAGUISAG

Mother can’t renounce parental authority over illegitimate child

Dear PAO,
Can I be stripped of my right to the custody of my illegitimate son just because I signed an agreement that I am turning over the child to the parents of his father and waived my rights?            
Chony

Dear Chony,
Your son, being illegitimate, is under your sole parental authority. This is explicitly provided by Article 176 of the Family Code of the Philippines, which states:

“Article 176. Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code. xxx”

Parental authority according to the Family Code of the Philippines is the parents’ natural rights and duties over the persons of their minor children to raise and rear them for civic consciousness and efficiency and the development of their moral, mental and physical character and well being (Article 209).

As such, the right to take the custody of your son shall be exercised by the one who enjoys parental authority over him. Since according to the above provision, you are the parent vested with parental authority, insofar as your illegitimate child is concerned, then it is only you who has the right over your child’s custody. Such right according to the law may not be renounced, waived or transferred to another person, except in the cases authorized by law. (Article 210, Ibid.)

Articles 228 and 229 of the said law enumerate the instances when parental authority terminates and may be transferred to another person, to wit:

“Art. 228. Parental authority terminates permanently:

(1) Upon the death of the parents;

xxx

Art. 229. Unless subsequently revived by a final judgment, parental authority also terminates:
(1) Upon adoption of the child;

(2) Upon appointment of a general guardian;

(3) Upon judicial declaration of abandonment of the child in a case filed for the purpose;

(4) Upon final judgment of a competent court divesting the party concerned of parental authority; or

(5) Upon judicial declaration of absence or incapacity of the person exercising parental authority.”

Again, we find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed or elaborated.

We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net