Ineffective conversion

This is another case of bigamy involving a married person who converted to Islam and married again. The issue raised here is whether he and his second wife are liable for the crime of bigamy. This is the case of Jun and Nita.

Jun and Nita got married about 34 years ago under the religious rites of Iglesia ni Cristo. After about 17 years of marriage and with two children, Jun left the family home and went to another city to find a job. Later on, he abandoned his family. Then Nita discovered that Jun was cohabiting with Linda and that they contracted marriage before a Municipal Trial Court judge about four months after he abandoned them.

So Nita charged Jun and Linda with the crime of bigamy. On arraignment by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Jun and Linda pleaded not guilty to the charge, although they admitted that they got married while Jun’s marriage to Nita was subsisting. However, they claimed that they could not be penalized for bigamy because they converted to Islam prior to their marriage.

The RTC, however, found Jun and Linda guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy and sentenced them to imprisonment of six months and one day minimum to six years and one day maximum. The RTC reasoned that the Muslim Code is not applicable in their case because Nita, who is one of the parties involved and the offended party, is not a Muslim.

This ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) which found that all the elements of bigamy were present. It 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. Were the RTC and the CA correct?

Yes, said the Supreme Court (SC). A party to a civil marriage who converts to Islam and contracts another marriage, despite the subsistence of the first marriage, is guilty of bigamy. Likewise guilty is the spouse of the subsequent marriage. Conversion to Islam does not operate to exculpate them from criminal liability. The nature, consequence and incidents of Jun’s prior marriage to Nita remain well within the ambit of the Civil Code. Even the Muslim Code Article 13 (2) explicitly spells out that the Civil Code governs where either party to a marriage is non-Muslim and the marriage was not solemnized in Muslim rites.

Whether Jun converted to Islam before or after his marriage to Linda, the subsequent marriage consummated the crime of bigamy. He cannot successfully invoke the exculpatory clause in Article 180 of the Muslim Code, considering that said Code is not applicable to his subsisting marriage to Nita. Courts should not condone practices which circumvent laws in the guise of preserving culture.

The Muslim Code applies to marriages, their nature, consequences and incidents between fellow Muslims, between a male Muslim and a non-Muslim solemnized in Muslim rites, between spouses who both converted to Islam after their marriage and between a male Muslim and a female non-Muslim entered into prior to the Code’s effectivity, it also penalizes specific offenses relative to marriages.

The general law, the Civil Code (superseded by the Family Code), governs marriages not solemnized under Muslim rites, including those between a Muslim and a non-Muslim. Crimes and offenses in connection with civil marriages are defined in the Revised Penal Code and special laws.

The Muslim Code allows subsequent marriages in certain conditions. The ponente maintains his views on the separation of Church and State. However, the reality is that the Muslim Code merely codified previously acknowledged customs which Muslims have observed since time immemorial.

Consequently, when married in accordance with the Muslim Code’s provisions or under the Muslim law before the Muslim Code’s effectivity, a male Muslim shall not be indicted for bigamy for subsequently marrying, as provided in Article 180 of the Muslim Code.

Article 3 of the Muslim Code declares that its provisions shall not be construed to the prejudice of a non-Muslim. Certainly, granting the Muslim convert, like petitioner Jun, the recourse provided in Article 180 would be prejudicial to the abandoned wife and the state, the aggrieved party in criminal prosecutions.

Moreover, Article 186 of the Muslim Code directs its prospective application on past acts and that nothing “shall affect their validity or legality or operate to extinguish any right acquired or liability incurred thereby, except as otherwise specifically provided.” Acts done prior to the effectivity of the Muslim Code remain governed by the Civil Code, the then pre-existing law of general application. Similarly, any protection which the Muslim Code may afford Jun when he converted to Islam – which is when the Muslim Code became applicable to him – must also be prospectively applied.

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 Jun prior and admittedly subsisting marriage to Nita remain well within the ambit of the Civil Code, and its counterpart penal provisions in the Revised Penal Code.

Whether Jun converted to Islam before or after his marriage with Linda, the subsequent marriage consummated the crime of bigamy. He cannot successfully invoke the exculpatory clause in Article 1802, considering that the Muslim Code finds no application in his then subsisting marriage with Nita, the marriage recognized by law that bars and penalizes a subsequent marriage.

So, Jun and Linda are really guilty of bigamy and are each sentenced to suffer imprisonment of two years four months minimum to eight years and one day maximum (Malaki and Salamatin-Malaki versus People of the Philippines, G.R. 221075, Nov. 15, 2021)

* * *