RONULO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Citation:  G.R. No. 182438, July 02, 2014

Ponente:  Brion, SECOND DIVISION

FACTS:

On March 29, 2003, Joey Umadac and Claire Bingayen were scheduled to marry one another.  On the day of the wedding, at the Roman Catholic Church of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, the priest refused to marry them when he learned that the couple did not have a marriage license. Instead, the couple, already dressed in their wedding attire and with their parents and friends, proceeded to the Aglipayan church and requested Petitioner, an Aglipayan Priest to marry them to which he proceeded to marry the couple. 

An information for violation of Article 352 of the RPC, was filed against the petitioner before the MTC of Batac, Ilocos Norte for allegedly performing an illegal marriage ceremony.

The petitioner pleaded “not guilty” and while he admitted that he conducted a ceremony, denied that his act of “blessing” the couple was tantamount to a solemnization of the marriage as contemplated by law.

The MTC found petitioner guilty of violating Art. 352 of the Revised Penal Code for conducting an illegal marriage ceremony.  The RTC affirmed as did the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner conducted a “blessing” and not an [illegal] marriage ceremony.

HELD:

Petitioner conducted an illegal marriage ceremony.  The crime as provided for in Art 352 of the RPC refers to the performance of marriages under Articles 3 and 6 of the Family Code which reads:

Art. 3. The formal requisites of marriage are:

x x x

(3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age.

x x x

Art. 6. No prescribed form or religious rite for the solemnization of the marriage is required. It shall be necessary, however, for the contracting parties to appear personally before the solemnizing officer and declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age that they take each other as husband and wife. This declaration shall be contained in the marriage certificate which shall be signed by the contracting parties and their witnesses and attested by the solemnizing officer.

. . .

 The Supreme Court explained that what made the petitioner's act a marriage ceremony and not just a mere blessing was that while there is no prescribed form or religious rite, all that was required was “for the contracting parties to appear personally before the solemnizing officer and declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age that they take each other as husband and wife.”

As to the first requirement, the petitioner admitted that the parties appeared before him and this fact was testified to by witnesses. On the second requirement, we find that, contrary to the petitioner’s allegation, the prosecution has proven, through the testimony of witnesses, that the contracting parties personally declared that they take each other as husband and wife.  Thus, it is clear that petitioner conducted a marriage ceremony and not a mere blessing.

The marriage ceremony was also illegal.  The Supreme Court stated that:

Under Article 3(3) of the Family Code, one of the essential requisites of marriage is the presence of a valid marriage certificate. In the present case, the petitioner admitted that he knew that the couple had no marriage license, yet he conducted the “blessing” of their relationship.

Undoubtedly, the petitioner conducted the marriage ceremony despite knowledge that the essential and formal requirements of marriage set by law were lacking. The marriage ceremony, therefore, was illegal. The petitioner’s knowledge of the absence of these requirements negates his defense of good faith.

We also do not agree with the petitioner that the lack of a marriage certificate negates his criminal liability in the present case. For purposes of determining if a marriage ceremony has been conducted, a marriage certificate is not included in the requirements provided by Article 3(3) of the Family Code, as discussed above.

Neither does the non-filing of a criminal complaint against the couple negate criminal liability of the petitioner. Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, does not make this an element of the crime.

The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.