Consummated

Is a person still liable for the crime of bigamy despite the fact that after contracting the second marriage, his first marriage is judicially declared null and void? This is the question once more raised and resolved in the case of Celso.

On November 26, 1992, Celso and Mely were civilly married at the Metropolitan Trial Court of Muntinglupa City. After their marriage, Mely left to work abroad and would only come home to the Philippines for vacations. Such situation apparently led Celso into the arms of another woman, Emma whom he courted and eventually married on December 10, 2001 in Meycauayan, Bulacan in a religious ceremony of a Protestant Church.

So when Mely went home for a vacation in 2002, she was informed of such marriage between Celso and Emma. To verify the information, she went to the National Statistics Office and secured a copy of the marriage certificate confirming the marriage of Celso and Emma. But since she was working abroad, she had no time to immediately take any steps against Celso.

It was only on February 13, 2006, when Mely’s uncle filed before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Malolos, a complaint accusing Celso of committing the crime of bigamy. And on June 8, 2006, Celso was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulacan with bigamy defined and penalized under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code as amended.

In the meantime, it turned out that Celso has also filed an action before the RTC of Caloocan City seeking the declaration of nullity of his marriage to Mely on the ground of the latter’s physical incapacity to comply with her essential marital obligation. And on May 4, 2006, the RTC of Caloocan rendered a decision declaring the marriage of Celso and Mely null and void. This decision became final on June 28, 2006 by virtue of the issuance of a certificate of finality.

Using this final judgment declaring his first marriage to Mely null and void, Celso claimed that there is no bigamy to speak of because there is in effect no such first marriage to Mely. He tried to differentiate between a previously valid but voidable marriage and a marriage null and void from the beginning (ab initio) and contended that while a voidable marriage requires a judicial dissolution before one can validly contract a second marriage, a void marriage need not be judicially determined.

But on August 15, 2007 the RTC nevertheless convicted Celso of the crime of bigamy and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 4 years, 2 months and 1 day, minimum to 6 years and 1 day as maximum. Was the trial court correct?

Yes. A judicial declaration of absolute nullity of a previous marriage is necessary before a person can contract a second marriage. Parties to a marriage should not be allowed to assume that their marriage is void even if such be the fact but must first secure a judicial declaration of the nullity of their marriage before they can be allowed to marry again.

In this case, Celso legally married Mely on November 26, 1992. He contracted a second and subsequent marriage with Emma on December 10, 2001. At the time of his second marriage to Emma, his first marriage to Mely was still legally subsisting. The decision declaring his first marriage to Mely became final only on June 27, 2006 or about 5 years after his second marriage to Emma. It is evident therefore has committed the crime charged. Criminal culpability attaches to the offender upon commission of the offense.

If Celso’s contention will be allowed, a person who commits bigamy can simply evade prosecution or conviction by immediately filing a petition for declaration of nullity of his earlier marriage and hope that a favorable decision is rendered therein before anyone institutes a complaint against him or before he is convicted of the crime charged (Teves vs. People, et.al., G.R. 188775, August 24, 2011, 656 SCRA, 307).

E-mail: [email protected].