G.R. No. 164435; September 29, 2009
VICTORIA S. JARILLO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Victoria S. Jarillo was charged with bigamy for contracting a second marriage with Emmanuel Ebora Santos Uy on November 26, 1979, while her prior marriage to Rafael M. Alocillo, celebrated in 1974 and 1975, remained undissolved. Jarillo pleaded not guilty, contending her marriages to Alocillo were void due to his alleged prior subsisting marriage and lack of a valid license, and that the criminal action had prescribed. The trial court convicted her, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA held that at the time of her second marriage, her first marriage was presumed valid as it had not yet been judicially declared null.
During the pendency of her appeal, the Regional Trial Court of Makati issued a final judgment dated March 28, 2003, declaring Jarillo’s marriage to Alocillo null and void ab initio on the ground of Alocillo’s psychological incapacity. Jarillo filed a motion for reconsideration with the CA, invoking this supervening declaration of nullity. The CA denied the motion, citing the precedent in Tenebro v. Court of Appeals, which ruled that a subsequent declaration of nullity does not extinguish criminal liability for bigamy.

ISSUE

Whether the subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity extinguishes the petitioner’s criminal liability for bigamy.

RULING

No, the subsequent declaration of nullity does not extinguish criminal liability. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The crime of bigamy, under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, requires that the accused contracts a second marriage before the first marriage has been legally dissolved or annulled. The Court, reiterating Tenebro, held that a judicial declaration of nullity is essential to remove the impediment of a prior marriage. At the time Jarillo contracted her second marriage in 1979, no such declaration existed; her first marriage was therefore legally presumed valid and subsisting. The subsequent annulment, while retroactive as to the marital bond, does not retroactively validate the act of contracting a second marriage while the first was undissolved. The element of a valid prior marriage at the time of the second marriage was present, completing the crime. However, for humanitarian reasons and considering the first marriage was later voided due to Alocillo’s psychological incapacity, the Court reduced the indeterminate penalty to two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional as minimum, to eight years and one day of prision mayor as maximum.