Argument for Lenis Case

Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code states that a penalty of prision mayor shall
be imposed upon any 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.
Furthermore, In Mendoza vs. Tan, 337 SCRA 122, provides the elements for
Bigamy to be committed which are:

1. That the offender has been legally married;

2. That first marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent,
the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code;
3. That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage;
4. That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.

From the above cited article and jurisprudence, it clearly shows that Atty. Rod
Rugista can be held liable of Bigamy because all of the elements of the bigamy are
present in his case.
In the case at bar, Atty Rod Rugista has been legally married to Leni Rugista. That
he contracted a subsequent marriage to Bonita Rugista despite the fact that his
marriage to Leni Rugista, legal wife, is still subsisting and has not been annulled or
dissolved.
Henceforth, Atty. Rod Rugista can be held liable for Bigamy.

Arguments for Amandas Case

The first issue to be resolved in this case whether the divorce paper is a valid
defense in bigamy.
Atty. Rod Rugista shall be held liable for bigamy even though he had obtained the
dissolution of first marriage from the abroad, as the defense of good faith in
bigamy case, because it is not recognize under Philippine Law. A judicial
declaration of nullity is needed before a married person to be remarry again. As
stated in Article 40 of the Family Code:
There must be a judicial declaration of the nullity of a previous marriage,
though void, before a party can enter into a second marriage and such
absolute nullity can be based only on a final judgment to that effect
Furthermore, divorce was allowed only on the following grounds under the
Revised Family Code. As stated in under Article 26 of the Family Code:
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a
divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her
to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
In People vs. Bitdu, 58 Phil 817, Bitdu contracted her second marriage only after obtaining her
divorce with her first husband under the Mohammedan Law. Also in this case, it distinguished
between a mistake of fact, which could be a basis for the defense of good faith in a bigamy case,
from a mistake of law, which does not excuse a person from liability. The court held:
.recognizes that both marriages were contracted according to tradition, but was
unsatisfied to accept that the divorce follows rules stated in the Koran. The court
adds that even if it did, laws governing marriage are moral in nature and as such are
laws relating to public policy. Customs cannot have precedence over the laws. Although
appellant acted in good faith, everyone is presumed to know the law and in violating it, is
not exempt from the consequences.

In the case at bar, Atty. Rod Rugista who obtained a declaration of dissolution of
first marriage from abroad, and later remarried in the Philippines, believing that the
foreign divorce paper was valid. It is sufficient to say that everyone is presumed to
know the law and the fact that one does not know the law will constitutes a
violation of the law, and does not makes him exempt from the consequences.

The second issue to be resolved in this case is whether Atty. Rod Rugista is liable
for the crime of Bigamy. It is important to know the elements of Bigamy. As stated
in Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.
That a penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any 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.

Furthermore, In Mendoza vs. Tan, 337 SCRA 122, provides the elements for
Bigamy to be committed which are:

1. That the offender has been legally married;

2. That first marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent,
the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code;
3. That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage;
4. That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.

In the case at bar, Atty. Rod Rugista contracted subsequent marriage to the
complainant despite that his prior marriage is still subsisting and have not been
annulled or dissolved.
Therefore, Atty. Rod Rugista can be held liable of Bigamy

The third issue to be resolved in this case is whether Amanda Rugista may file a
case for bigamy against Atty. Rod Rugista notwithstanding the fact that she is the
second wife. In Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 678, provides the rules
with regards to the persons authority to file Bigamy, as the Supreme Court said:
It is settled that in Bigamy, both the first and the second spouses may be the offended
parties depending on the circumstances

In the case at bar, it is immaterial therefore that Amanda Rugista turned out to be
the second wife. What is material in this situation is the existence of the elements
of the crime of bigamy and that Amanda Rugista as the offended party, did not
know that Atty. Rod Rugista was already married to another person at the time you
were married.

Lastly, Atty. Rod Rugista can be held liable for moral damages which Amanda
suffered insulted and pain as a result of being a second wife. As stated in Article 20
and 21 of the Family Code provides:
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to
another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.

Art. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the
damage.