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 Perlas-Bernabe in the case of Luisito G. Pulido vs. People of the Philippines. The petitioner, Luisito G. Pulido, successfully proffered the defense of nullity of a prior or subsequent marriage in a prosecution for the crime of Bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The opinion concurs with the main ruling that persons should not be convicted of Bigamy if the prior and/or subsequent marriage is a nullity, regardless of the date of the marriage’s celebration.

ISSUE

Whether a person can be convicted of the crime of Bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code when the prior and/or subsequent marriage is null and void.

RULING

No. The Concurring Opinion holds that a person cannot be convicted of Bigamy if the prior or subsequent marriage is null and void. The nullity of a marriage is a valid defense in every subsisting prosecution for Bigamy. The opinion bases this conclusion on the following points:
1. Strict Construction of Penal Laws: Criminal statutes must be strictly construed, and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.
2. Letter of the Law: Article 349 of the RPC penalizes contracting a second marriage “before the former marriage has been legally dissolved.” The term “dissolved” means to terminate or bring to an end. A null and void marriage is legally inexistent from the beginning; there is no juridical tie to dissolve. A judicial declaration of nullity merely confirms this status and does not “legally dissolve” anything.
3. Spirit and Legislative Context: The Bigamy provision was patterned after the Spanish Codigo Penal. At the time of its enactment, the governing law (the Spanish Civil Code of 1889) provided for the dissolution of marriages only through annulment (for voidable marriages) or divorce (for valid marriages). Therefore, Article 349 was intended to cover only voidable and valid marriages, not those that are null and void from the outset.
4. Purpose of the Law: Bigamy is penalized to preserve the juridical tie of a valid marriage. Since a null and void marriage creates no such juridical tie, there is nothing to preserve, and thus, no rationale for criminal liability.
5. Civil Law Requirement Distinguished: The requirement under Article 40 of the Family Code for a judicial declaration of nullity for purposes of remarriage is a civil law matter and does not amend or impliedly repeal the criminal law on Bigamy.
6. Legal Incongruence Acknowledged: The opinion acknowledges that this interpretation creates a disparity between criminal law (no Bigamy liability if first marriage is void) and civil law (a subsequent marriage is void for being bigamous under Article 35[4] of the Family Code). However, bridging this gap is a matter for legislative action, as the Court is constrained to apply Article 349 of the RPC as written.
Accordingly, the Concurring Opinion concludes that the petitioner should be ACQUITTED.