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? These are the questions resolved in this case of Manny.
Manny was only 16 years old when he married his teacher, Marta, 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, Manny stopped going home to their conjugal dwelling. When Marta confronted him, Manny admitted having an affair with Amy. Marta likewise learned that Manny married Amy about 12 years ago.
So Marta charged Manny and Amy before the RTC with the crime of bigamy. Manny, 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 Marta is null and void for lack of a valid marriage license while his marriage to Amy is also null and void for lack of a marriage ceremony.
Amy, on the other hand, claimed that she only knew of Manny’s prior marriage to Marta about 12 years after Manny married her, and that even prior to the filing of the bigamy case, she already filed a petition to annul her marriage to Manny and that said marriage was already declared by the RTC as null and void for being bigamous. Amy also alleged that this RTC ruling has already attained finality because no appeal has been filed thereto.
After trial, the RTC convicted Manny and acquitted Amy. The RTC sentenced Manny to suffer imprisonment of two years, three months and one day minimum to six years and one day, maximum.
The RTC ruled that as to the first marriage of Manny to Marta, 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 two years four months and one day minimum, to eight years, four months and one day maximum. Were the RTC and CA correct in convicting?
The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that Manny’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.
When the Court is confronted with two possible interpretations of a penal statute, one that is prejudicial to the accused and another that is favorable to him, the rule of equity calls for the adaption of an interpretation which is more lenient to the accused.
In the instant case, to hold that a judicial declaration of absolute nullity is a necessity before an accused in criminal prosecution for bigamy may invoke his void ab initio marriage as a valid defense interprets Article 349 too liberally in favor of the State and too strictly against the accused, in violation of the rule of equity and the rule on strict construction of penal laws.
The principle is also rooted in the need to maintain the separation of powers by ensuring that the legislature, and not the judiciary, defines crimes and prescribes their penalties.
Nevertheless, we reiterate that the phrase “for purposes of remarriage” in Article 40 does not restrict the accused in a criminal case for bigamy, or parties in cases brought for purposes other than remarriage, from presenting a judicial declaration of nullity of their marriage in evidence. The framers of the Family Code included the qualifying phrase “for purposes of remarriage” in drafting Article 40 of the Family Code merely in recognition of the fact that there are actions other than for purposes of remarriage that are brought under the assumption that the marriage is valid, and to allow the defendants in the said actions to present evidence that the marriage is void to absolve themselves or liability.
All told, we hold that in criminal prosecutions for bigamy, the accused can validly interpose the defense of a void ab initio marriage even without obtaining a judicial declaration of absolute nullity. Consequently, a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of the first and/or subsequent marriage obtained by the accused in a separate proceeding, irrespective of the time within which they are secured, is a valid defense in the criminal prosecution for bigamy.
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 Manny is acquitted. (Pulido vs People, G.R. 220149, July 27, 2021)