GR 220149 CAguioa (Digest)
G.R. No. 220149 , July 27, 2021
LUISITO G. PULIDO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
This is a Concurring Opinion by Justice Caguioa in a case involving the crime of Bigamy. The opinion traces the jurisprudential history regarding whether the absolute nullity of a void ab initio marriage is a valid defense in a bigamy prosecution, even absent a prior judicial declaration of nullity. Earlier cases like People v. Mendoza and People v. Aragon recognized this defense, acquitting accused persons where a prior or subsequent marriage was void. However, subsequent cases, impelled by the enactment of Article 40 of the Family Code, such as Mercado v. Tan, Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis, and Tenebro v. Court of Appeals, took a contrary view. These later rulings held that contracting a subsequent marriage without a prior judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage constitutes bigamy, even if the first marriage was void ab initio, rendering the defense of nullity immaterial.
ISSUE
Whether the absolute nullity of a void ab initio marriage is a valid defense in a prosecution for Bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, absent a separate judicial declaration of nullity.
RULING
Yes. The absolute nullity of a void ab initio marriage is a valid defense in a bigamy prosecution, and it can be proven within the criminal proceeding itself without need for a prior separate judicial declaration of nullity. A plain reading of Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code supports this conclusion. The crime of Bigamy requires that the offender “has been legally married” and that the first marriage “has not been legally dissolved.” A void ab initio marriage is deemed never to have taken place and does not require legal dissolution; therefore, it cannot be the “former marriage” contemplated by the law. Furthermore, the fourth element requires that the subsequent marriage would have been valid but for the existence of the first. If either marriage is void ab initio, the crime is not committed. The opinion argues that the later jurisprudence, which expanded liability by requiring a judicial declaration, finds no anchor in the clear language of Article 349 and unduly expands the defined crime. Thus, previous cases like Mercado, Marbella-Bobis, and Tenebro should be abandoned.