GR 220149; (July, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 220149 , July 27, 2021
LUISITO G. PULIDO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner Luisito G. Pulido was charged with Bigamy for contracting a second marriage with Rowena U. Baleda on July 31, 2005, while his first marriage to Nora A. Pulido (née Arcon) on September 5, 1983, was allegedly still subsisting and undissolved. Pulido pleaded not guilty, contending both marriages were null and void: the first for lack of a valid marriage license and the second for lack of a marriage ceremony. He also noted that his second marriage was judicially declared null and void by the RTC of Imus, Cavite, on October 25, 2007, a decision which became final. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City convicted Pulido of Bigamy on June 22, 2009. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction with a penalty modification in its March 17, 2015 Decision. Subsequently, on November 27, 2015, the RTC of Imus, Cavite, declared Pulido’s first marriage to Arcon void from the beginning, a decision which became final on May 11, 2016.
ISSUE
May an accused indicted for Bigamy be exculpated on the basis of the judicial declaration of nullity of his first or second marriage?
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision, upholding Pulido’s conviction for Bigamy. The Court ruled that:
1. Article 40 of the Family Code applies retroactively to require a judicial declaration of nullity of a prior marriage as a condition precedent for contracting a subsequent marriage, even if the first marriage was celebrated under the Civil Code, provided the subsequent marriage was contracted after the Family Code’s effectivity. Pulido’s second marriage in 1995 fell under this requirement.
2. A judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage obtained after the celebration of the second marriage is not a defense in a Bigamy prosecution. The crime is consummated at the moment the second marriage is contracted while the first marriage is de facto subsisting, and a subsequent judicial declaration does not retroactively absolve criminal liability.
3. The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the second marriage (for being bigamous) likewise does not exonerate the accused. The elements of Bigamy were complete when Pulido contracted the second marriage: (a) he was legally married to Arcon, (b) that marriage was not legally dissolved or declared void, (c) he contracted a second marriage with Baleda, and (d) the second marriage had all the requisites for validity. The Court found the first marriage was de facto subsisting based on the marriage certificate indicating a license number, and the certifications of non-record did not prove non-issuance. The second marriage was also deemed validly celebrated based on the marriage contract as a public document. The purpose of the law is to punish the deliberate disregard of legal safeguards on marriage, and allowing a subsequent declaration as a defense would negate this intent.