Is a marriage, void from the beginning, a valid defense in the prosecution for bigamy even without a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of either the first or second marriages of the accused? Can a person accused of bigamy raise the defense that his first or second marriage is void even without first securing a judicial declaration of nullity? This is the question resolved in this case of Tony.
Tony was only 16 years old when he married his teacher, Naty, in a civil ceremony solemnized by the city mayor. Their marriage was blessed with a child born one year after. After about 23 years of living together, Tony stopped going home to their conjugal dwelling. When Naty confronted him, Tony admitted having an affair with Bella. Naty likewise learned that Tony also married Bella about 12 years ago.
So Naty charged Tony and Bella before the RTC with the crime of bigamy. Tony, however, insisted that he could not be criminally liable for bigamy because both his marriages were null and void. He claimed that his marriage to Naty is null and void for lack of a valid marriage license while his marriage to Bella is also null and void for lack of a marriage ceremony.
Bella, on the other hand, claimed that she only knew of Tony’s prior marriage to Naty about 12 years after Tony married her; and that even prior to the filing of the bigamy case, she already filed a petition to annul her marriage to Tony and that said marriage was already declared by the RTC as null and void for being bigamous. Bella also alleged that this RTC ruling has already attained finality because no appeal has been filed thereto.
After trial, the RTC convicted Tony and acquitted Bella. It sentenced Tony to suffer imprisonment of 2 years 3 months and 1day minimum to 6 years and 1 day, maximum. The RTC ruled that as to the first marriage of Tony to Naty, the certifications issued by the Civil Registrar merely proved that the marriage license could not be found, not that they never existed and that the marriage certificate which reflected the marriage license number has a higher probative value than said certification by the Civil Registrar. This was affirmed but modified by the Court of Appeals (CA) by increasing the penalty to 2 years 4 months and 1 day minimum to 8 years 4 months and 1 day maximum. Were the RTC and CA correct in convicting?
The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that Tony’s conviction is not correct. According to the SC, a void ab initio marriage is a valid defense in the prosecution for bigamy even without a judicial declaration of absolute nullity. Void marriages are marriages without formal or essential requisites, or incestuous marriage or those void by reason of public policy which are inexistent from the beginning and therefore the parties were never married. The Family Code only requires a judicial declaration of nullity for purposes of remarriage but not as defense in bigamy. The parties to a void ab initio marriage are not required to obtain a judicial declaration of nullity in order to raise it as a defense in a bigamy case. It is only in voidable first or second marriage that a judicial declaration of nullity is required as a defense in the bigamy case. So, the RTC decision as affirmed by the CA is reversed and set aside and Tony is acquitted. (Pulido vs People, G.R. 220149, July 27, 2021)
* * *
Email: js0711192@gmail.com