GR 164435; (June, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 164435; June 29, 2010
VICTORIA S. JARILLO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Victoria S. Jarillo was convicted of bigamy. Her conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court in a Decision dated September 29, 2009. She filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that her marriages were contracted before the effectivity of the Family Code. Consequently, she contended that the applicable law should be Section 29 of the Marriage Law (Act No. 3613), not Article 40 of the Family Code. Article 40 requires a final judicial declaration of nullity of a prior marriage before a subsequent marriage can be legally contracted.
ISSUE
Whether Article 40 of the Family Code, which mandates a prior judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage, applies retroactively to marriages celebrated before the Family Code’s effectivity for the purpose of prosecuting the crime of bigamy.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration with finality. The Court held that Article 40 of the Family Code applies retroactively as a rule of procedure. Article 256 of the Family Code provides that the Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice vested or acquired rights. Procedural laws, which do not create vested rights, may be applied retroactively to pending actions. The Court cited its precedent in Atienza v. Brillantes, Jr., which established this retroactive application.
The legal logic is grounded in public policy and the prevention of absurd or dangerous outcomes. As elucidated in Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis, not enforcing Article 40 would allow an individual to contract a subsequent marriage, knowingly claim the first marriage was void, and then use the absence of a prior judicial declaration as a defense against bigamy. This would effectively nullify the crime of bigamy, as any person could simply disregard the judicial process and enter into multiple marriages. The Court refused to sanction such a scenario, which petitioner’s argument would permit. Therefore, the requirement of a prior judicial declaration under Article 40 is a procedural safeguard that applies regardless of when the marriages were celebrated, ensuring the integrity of marital laws and the bigamy statute.