In 1983, 16-year old Luisito Pulido first married his 22-year old teacher Nora.
In 2007, in a confrontation, Pulido admitted his illicit affair with Rowena. Nora discovered her husband had a second marriage with Rowena in 1995. Nora thus charged Pulido and Rowena with bigamy.
Pulido argued that he cannot be held liable for bigamy because his two marriages were void since the first had no license and the second had no ceremony. On the other hand, Rowena argued that before the filing of the bigamy case, the court granted her petition to annul her marriage.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court acquitted Rowena, but convicted Pulido and ruled that the validity of the two marriages is immaterial in the criminal case of bigamy and any irregularities in the requisites of marriage will not affect the validity of the said two marriages.
Pulido appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the RTC. It ruled that even assuming that the first marriage was void for lack of a marriage license, one may still be held liable for bigamy if he/she enters a second marriage without first obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage. This is required by Article 40 of the Family Code. There is bigamy the moment Pulido entered into second marriage without his first marriage with Nora being declared void by a court. Thus, he appealed again.
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, decided Pulido v. People, G.R. No. 220149 [27 July 2021] in this wise: Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code provides an imprisonment of six years and one day to 12 years on anyone who contracts a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved.
To be guilty of bigamy, four elements must be proven: [1] offender has been legally married; [2] first marriage has not been legally dissolved, or in case his/her spouse is absent, the absent spouse cannot yet be presumed dead under the Civil Code; [3] offender contracts a second or subsequent marriage and [4] second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.
It is important in the prosecution for bigamy that the second marriage, having all the essential requirements, would be valid were it not for the subsistence of the first marriage.
Under Article 40 of the Family Code, the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. Thus, even if the marriage is void, a final court judgment declaring it void for purposes of remarriage is required. It has retroactive application on marriages contracted prior to August 1988 — the effectivity of the Family Code— but only for the purpose of remarriage, as the parties are not permitted to judge for themselves the nullity of their marriage.
In other words, in order to remarry, a judicial declaration of nullity is required even for prior marriages contracted before the effectivity of the Family Code. But, in a criminal prosecution for bigamy, the parties may still raise the defense of a void ab initio marriage even without obtaining a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of the marriage.
Marriages that are voidable [meaning valid until annulled] are those attended by fraud under Article 45 of the Family Code. It produces civil effect until it is set aside by a court in an annulment suit. Its validity can only be questioned in a direct suit filed in court.
There is bigamy if the first marriage of the accused is only voidable and he/she enters a second marriage. There must be a court decision annulling the first marriage before one can enter a second marriage.
Marriages that are void ab inito or void from the beginning are those marriages where any of its essential or formal requisites are absent: age, consent, marriage license, authority of the solemnizer, ceremony and those marriages that are incestuous, or void by reason of public policy like those stated in Articles 35, 36, 37, 38, 44 and 53 of the Family Code.
If the first marriage is void ab initio, there is no bigamy because void marriages are inexistent from the very beginning. Under the lens of the law, the parties thereto were never married. As void marriage produces no legal effects, it is as if there was no marriage. There is no need to get a final judgment declaring the first marriage void. Since his first marriage was void ab initio, Pulido was acquitted.
Thus, marrying twice is not bigamy if the first or second marriage is one that can be considered void ab initio [void from the very beginning].
