The Supreme Court clarified that conversion to Islam does not
exempt a person from criminal liability for bigamy if they
subsequently contract another marriage while the first marriage
is still subsisting. Additionally, the Court emphasized that the
formal requisites under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws
(Muslim Code) must be adhered to for a marriage to be valid. The
failure to follow these formal requirements invalidates the
subsequent marriage, regardless of religious conversion, and
does not shield the parties involved from the consequences of
bigamy.
Francis D. Malaki v. People of the Philippines,
G.R. 221075, LEONEN, November 15, 2021
Facts:
In this case, Francis D. Malaki, Sr. and Jacqueline Mae A. Salanatin
were charged with bigamy after contracting a second marriage
even though Francis’ first marriage to Nerrian Maningo-Malaki
was still subsisting. The couple married on June 18, 2005, despite
Francis’ prior civil marriage to Nerrian, which took place in 1988.
While Francis and Jacqueline claimed that their conversion to
Islam prior to their second marriage provided them immunity
from the charge of bigamy, the facts showed otherwise.
The marriage between Francis and Nerrian was not legally
dissolved, and Nerrian discovered that Francis was living with
Jacqueline, later finding out that they had married. Francis and
Jacqueline admitted to the marriage but argued that their
conversion to Islam justified their actions and rendered them
exempt from the bigamy charge. Despite these claims, the
Regional Trial Court found them guilty of bigamy and sentenced
them accordingly. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s
decision, prompting the couple to file a petition before the
Supreme Court.
Issue/s:
Whether the conversion of a person to Islam while still married
under civil law exempts them from criminal liability for
contracting another marriage.
Whether the subsequent marriage of a convert to Islam is valid
without compliance with the formal requisites under the Code of
Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines.
Held:
The Supreme Court, in its decision, denied the petition of Francis
and Jacqueline and upheld their conviction for bigamy. The Court
ruled that conversion to Islam does not automatically nullify the
previous marriage or make subsequent marriages valid without
following the procedures set forth by law. Specifically, the Court
addressed the following points:
Conversion to Islam Does Not Exempt From Bigamy
Liability
The Court ruled that the conversion of Francis to Islam before
marrying Jacqueline did not exempt him from criminal liability
under the Revised Penal Code. Conversion to Islam does not
automatically dissolve a prior civil marriage, nor does it provide
an individual with an exception to the legal requirements of
contracting a second marriage. The Court explained that unless
the first marriage is legally dissolved or the spouse has been
presumed dead under the Civil Code, any subsequent marriage
would constitute bigamy.
The Court emphasized that while the Muslim Code does provide
provisions on marriage and divorce for Muslims, it does not apply
to a marriage that remains valid under the Civil Code, especially
when one of the parties is a non-Muslim. In this case, Francis’ first
marriage with Nerrian remained valid under the Civil Code, and
thus, his subsequent marriage to Jacqueline, without the
dissolution of the first marriage, amounted to bigamy. The Court
ruled that the conversion to Islam did not legally alter the status
of his first marriage.
Subsequent Marriage Invalid Without Compliance with
Formal Requisites
The Court also ruled that the second marriage was not valid
because Francis and Jacqueline failed to comply with the formal
requirements of the Muslim Code. According to the Muslim Code,
a Muslim man wishing to marry another woman must comply with
specific procedures, such as notifying the Shari’a Circuit Court
and obtaining the consent of the first wife. These steps are
designed to ensure fairness and that the rights of all parties are
respected. In this case, Francis did not follow these procedures,
and his failure to notify his first wife, nor to obtain her consent,
invalidated the subsequent marriage under the Muslim Code.
The Court noted that compliance with these formal requisites is
not merely procedural but essential. The absence of the wife’s
knowledge and consent prevents the Shari’a Circuit Court from
ruling on any objections, further rendering the subsequent
marriage void. Thus, the Court concluded that the subsequent
marriage was not only unlawful under civil law but also failed to
meet the substantive and formal conditions required by the
Muslim Code, which would have made it valid had the necessary
procedures been followed.
Conclusion and Penalty
As a result, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling, finding
Francis and Jacqueline guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy.
However, it modified the penalty, sentencing them each to an
indeterminate term of imprisonment ranging from two years and
four months to eight years and one day.
The Court’s ruling reinforced the principle that religious
conversion alone cannot override the legal provisions governing
marriage in the Philippines. While the Muslim Code does provide
certain allowances for subsequent marriages, those allowances
are conditional and require compliance with strict formalities. In
this case, the failure to comply with the legal requirements
rendered the subsequent marriage invalid and further confirmed
the criminal liability for bigamy.
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 D. Malaki, Sr. and Jacqueline Mae A. Salanatin
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 prisión
correccional as minimum to eight years and one day of prisión
mayor as maximum.
SO ORDERED.
