Decision
2
G.R. No. 211829
That on or about the 11th day of September 1991, in the
Municipality of Calauag, province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused Jacinto Bagaporo, being
then legally married to. one Dennia Dumlao in a marriage ceremony
solemnized on March 10, 1986 at Quezon City by Judge Perfecto Laguio,
Jr., and without said marriage having been legally dissolved or annulled,
did then and there willfully[,] unlawfully and feloniously contract a
second and subsequent marriage with Milagros Lumas.
Contrary to law. 5
Docketed as Crim. Case No. 4 789-C before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Calauag in Quezon, Branch 63, trial ensued.
In a Decision6 dated October 1, 2012, the RTC found petitioner guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Bigamy. Petitioner was sentenced
to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment with a minimum term of
two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional, to a maximum
term of eight years and one day of prision mayor, with the accessory
penalties.
Petitioner appealed his conviction. According to the petitioner, his
then counsel of record, Atty. Angelo Cerdan (Atty. Cerdan), broached the
idea that he might want to engage a new lawyer based near in Manila to
henceforth handle the appeal. This allegedly prompted the petitioner to
consult his present counsel, Atty. Berteni Catalufia Causing (Atty. Causing),
in January of 2013.
Atty. Causing advised the petitioner to secure first Atty. Cerdan 's
formal withdrawal as counsel. Nonetheless, upon Atty. Causing's advice and
assistance, ostensibly as collaborating counsel, petitioner filed a Motion to
Withdraw Notice of Appeal and a Motion for Reconsideration before the
RTC on January 11, 2013. 7 Copies of both motions were allegedly furnished
to Atty. Cerdan when the petitioner visited the farmer's office on February
25, 2013. It was then that petitioner supposedly clarified with Atty. Cerdon's
secretary that Atty. Cerdan remained to be his counsel of record to take
charge of the appeal before the CA, notwithstanding Atty. Causing 's
engagement to pursue post-judgment remedies before the RTC.
Meanwhile, the appeal before the CA proceeded. Petitioner was, thus,
required by the CA on March 18, 2013 to file an appeal brief. The notice
was received by Atty. Cerdan on April 8, 2013.
Id.
6
Id. at 82-90.
Id. at 91-105.
~