G.R. No. 220149, July 27, 2021
LUISITO G. PULIDO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This case involves a Concurring Opinion by Justice Lazaro-Javier on the evolving jurisprudence regarding the first two elements of the crime of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. The opinion reflects on whether an accused in a bigamy case can prove the nullity of a prior marriage as a defense within the same criminal proceeding, without needing a prior judicial declaration of nullity.

ISSUE

The primary issue is the proper interpretation of the first two elements of bigamy, specifically: (1) whether the first element (“the offender has been legally married”) requires the prior marriage to be valid, and if an accused can prove its nullity in the same criminal case; and (2) whether the second element (“the marriage has not been legally dissolved”) requires a prior judicial declaration of nullity for a void marriage before a subsequent marriage is contracted.

RULING

Justice Lazaro-Javier, in her concurring opinion, submits that:
1. The first element of bigamy requires that the prior marriage be valid. An accused must be allowed to prove reasonable doubt as to its existence (i.e., its nullity) in the same criminal case for bigamy where they are being tried. The text of Article 40 of the Family Code, which requires a judicial declaration of nullity “for purposes of remarriage,” does not extend this requirement to criminal prosecutions for bigamy. The rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius applies: the express mention of remarriage excludes other purposes, such as defending against a bigamy charge.
2. The second element of bigamy requires that the prior marriage be “legally dissolved.” “Legal dissolution” refers to a formal declaration by a court of law that terminates the marital bond, such as through divorce, annulment, or nullity. This dissolution must be factual and legal, meaning it must occur through a proper legal act or proceeding. However, for null marriages (void ab initio), the opinion suggests that the requirement of a prior judicial declaration is not absolute for bigamy defenses. The nullity can be established in the same criminal proceeding through relevant evidence, as the effect of nullity retroacts to the beginning of the marriage. Thus, it does not matter if the judicial decree of nullity was obtained before or after the second marriage, as long as the nullity is proven.
3. The opinion distinguishes between Articles 349 (bigamy) and 350 (marriage contracted against provisions of laws) of the Revised Penal Code. Article 349 involves at least two successive marriages, while Article 350 involves a single defective marriage. In a bigamy case, the prosecution must prove the validity of the prior marriage beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused can challenge this by proving its nullity. In contrast, Article 350 focuses on the knowing non-compliance with legal requirements when contracting a marriage.
4. The opinion emphasizes that penal statutes must be liberally construed in favor of the accused, and every reasonable doubt must be resolved in their favor. No act can be pronounced criminal unless clearly made so by statute (nullum crimen, nulla poena, sine lege). Therefore, the elements of bigamy must be strictly interpreted to protect the accused’s rights.