G.R. No. 272844 , February 24, 2025
ERWIN BONBON Y TIA, PETITIONER, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Erwin Bonbon y Tia was charged with Bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code for contracting a marriage with Elizabeth Brua on February 1, 1999, in Baungon, Bukidnon, while his prior marriage to Gemma Cunada on January 3, 1988, remained subsisting, neither nullified nor with Gemma judicially declared presumptively dead. The information alleged Elizabeth contracted the marriage fully aware Erwin was married. The case originated from a complaint filed by Erwin’s sisters, Cecile and Alice, who discovered his multiple marriages while processing their mother’s GSIS benefits. They obtained PSA-certified marriage certificates showing Erwin married Gemma (1988), then Rizalina Marcos (1994), and finally Elizabeth (1999). Cecile testified that before the 1999 marriage, their mother Necitas told Elizabeth and her family that Erwin was already married, and she herself informed Elizabeth in 1998 that Erwin was married to Gemma. The NBI investigator, Atty. Chemene Nacua, testified to securing the marriage certificates via subpoena. In defense, Erwin claimed his family pressured him to marry Elizabeth because they had children, and his mother orchestrated a “secret” civil wedding. He asserted he did not tell Elizabeth about his prior marriage, as instructed by his family. Elizabeth testified she had no prior knowledge of Erwin’s previous marriages and agreed to the secret wedding upon his mother’s instruction. The RTC convicted Erwin and Elizabeth. The CA affirmed the conviction, dismissing their appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner Erwin Bonbon’s conviction for the crime of Bigamy.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review and affirmed the CA’s Decision and Resolution. The Court held that all elements of Bigamy were proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) Erwin was legally married to Gemma Cunada; (2) that first marriage was still subsisting when he contracted a second marriage with Elizabeth Brua; (3) the second marriage contracted by Erwin and Elizabeth had all the essential requisites for validity; and (4) Elizabeth was aware of Erwin’s prior marriage. The certified marriage certificates from the PSA constituted prima facie evidence of the marriages’ existence and validity. Erwin’s defense that the marriage to Elizabeth was a “secret” ceremony with a blank contract did not overcome the presumption of regularity accorded to public documents. His claim that Elizabeth lacked knowledge was contradicted by the testimonies of his sisters, which the trial court found credible. The crime of bigamy is a public offense that prescribes in 15 years; since the second marriage was contracted in 1999 and the complaint was filed in 2021, the crime had already prescribed. However, the defense of prescription was not raised in the trial court or on appeal and is deemed waived. Consequently, the conviction stands.