Can a couple who converted to Islam and got married while the husband’s first marriage was still subsisting be both acquitted of bigamy charges?
No, the Supreme Court (SC) said as it declared:
“A party to a civil marriage who converts to Islam and contracts another marriage, despite the first marriage's subsistence, is guilty of bigamy.
“Likewise guilty is the spouse in the subsequent marriage. Conversion to Islam does not operate to exculpate them from criminal liability.
“Further, a married Muslim cannot marry another. In exceptional cases, a married Muslim man may do so if ‘he can deal with them with equal companionship and just treatment as enjoined by Islamic law.’
“The formal requisites of the subsequent marriage under Presidential Decree No. 1083 or the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines (Muslim Code) entails the wife's knowledge of the impending subsequent marriage.”
With its declaration contained in the decision written by Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen and made public last March 21, the SC denied the petition for review filed by Francis and Jacqueline.
The SC affirmed the 2015 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which upheld the 2012 ruling of the regional trial court (RTC) that convicted Francis and Jacqueline of bigamy and sentenced each of them to a prison term ranging from six months and one day to six years and one day.
But the SC decision modified the penalty imposed by both the RTC and the CA. It increased the jail term to two years and four months as minimum to eight years and one day as maximum.
(While the SC decision did not redact the names of the parties in the case which was docketed as GR No. 221075, Manila Bulletin decided to mention only the first names of the parties in the case.)
Francis and Jacqueline were indicted for bigamy in the Nov. 20, 2006 criminal charge sheet which stated that on June 18, 2005, Francis who was previously married to Nerrian “and without said marriage having been legally dissolved, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously contracted a second marriage with Jacqueline.”
Under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of bigamy is committed by a person “who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings.”
During the trial, Nerrian testified that she and Francis were married on March 26, 1988 under the religious rites of the Iglesia ni Cristo. She said she and Francis have two children.
Nerrian also said Francis left their home in 2005 to look for a job. However, she said she found out that Francis was cohabiting with Jacqueline and contracted marriage on June 18, 2005 before a municipal trial court judge.
Francis and Jacqueline admitted that they got married while Francis' marriage to Nerrian was subsisting. But they said they cannot be held liable for bigamy because they converted to Islam before their marriage.
In convicting Francis and Jacqueline, the RTC said the Muslim Code does not apply because Nerrian is not a Muslim.
The CA sustained the RTC ruling as it found that all the elements of bigamy were present in the case. The appellate court held that unless the first marriage was dissolved and finalized under the Civil Code, any party's subsequent marriage shall make them liable for bigamy.
In their SC petition, Francis and Jacqueline insisted they are Muslims and married under Muslim Law. They presented anew their certificate of conversion and their certificate of marriage.
They pointed out that their marriage before a trial court judge on June 18, 2005 was merely ceremonial because they had been married under Muslim rites on June 5, 2005.
They also argued that based on Article 3 of the Muslim Code, when there is a conflict between Muslim law and the general law, Muslim law prevails.
In resolving the issue after discussing previous decisions, the SC said:
“Petitioners (Francis and Jacqueline) admit that Francis was legally married to Nerrian and that the marriage was not dissolved. They likewise admit that they subsequently married despite the subsistence of Francis' marriage to Nerrian.
“These admissions sufficiently establish all the elements of bigamy which prove petitioners' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, they claim that they both converted to Islam and were married under Muslim rites. They contend that Muslims may subsequently marry and this exculpates them from criminal liability.
“Indeed, in case of conflict with a general law, the Muslim Code prevails. However, Article 13(2) of the Muslim Code explicitly spells out that the Civil Code governs marriages where either party is non-Muslim and which were not solemnized in Muslim rites. There is no conflict with general law here.
“The nature, consequences, and incidents of petitioner Francis' prior and admittedly subsisting marriage to Nerrian remain well-within the ambit of the Civil Code, and its counterpart penal provisions in the Revised Penal Code.
“Whether petitioner Francis converted to Islam before or after his marriage with petitioner Jacqueline, the subsequent marriage consummated the crime of bigamy.
“He cannot successfully invoke the exculpatory clause in Article 180, considering that the Muslim Code finds no application in his then subsisting marriage with Nerrian, the marriage recognized by law that bars and penalizes a subsequent marriage.
“All told, this Court affirms the Court of Appeals' ruling that petitioners are guilty of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.
“Our pluralist society recognizes that legal institutions may not be subsumed in a homogenous legal system. We enact laws to ‘preserve and develop cultures, traditions and institutions’ of indigenous cultural communities and religious minority which come from various sources. Concomitantly, we enabled a system where these laws co-exist and simultaneously operate.
“However, this Court should not condone practices which circumvent laws in the guise of preserving culture.
“WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Court of Appeals' April 24, 2015 Decision and September 17, 2015 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 00990-MIN are AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION.
“Petitioners Francis ... and Jacqueline ... are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy in Criminal Case No. 15432 and are each sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of two years and four months of prision correccional as minimum to eight years and one day of prision mayor as maximum. SO ORDERED.”