One who enters into a second marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage is liable for the crime of bigamy. But what if the first marriage is null and void and there is already a pending case for judicial declaration of its nullity, could he/she still be held liable for bigamy? This is the question answered in this case of Gina.
On May 24, 1974 Gina married Alan in a civil wedding ceremony solemnized by a municipal mayor. Subsequently, Gina and Alan affirmed their marriage in a church wedding ceremony. Out of their marital union, they begot a daughter.
Later on, Gina and Alan’s marriage hit the rocks when Gina learned that Alan seemed to be psychologically incapacitated to comply with his marital obligation. In fact, she also heard that Alan was still married to another woman at the time they got married.
Eventually, Gina met Sonny, fell in love with him and married him. Then later on, Gina and Sonny renewed their marital vows in a church wedding ceremony.
Subsequently, however, Sonny got wind of Gina’s existing marriage to Alan. So he filed an action against Gina for the annulment of their marriage. Then Gina was also charged with bigamy before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
For her defense in the bigamy case, Gina insisted that her 1974 and 1975 marriages to Alan were null and void. In fact, she also filed an action against Alan for the declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. She thus asked the RTC to suspend the criminal proceedings.
But the RTC did not suspend the proceedings. Instead, the RTC found Gina guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy and sentenced her to imprisonment of six years minimum to 10 years maximum. Gina appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). In her appeal she asked the CA to suspend the proceedings, this time invoking the petition for declaration of the nullity of their marriage filed by Sonny.
While this appeal was pending, a decision was already rendered in the action she filed against Alan declaring their marriages in 1974 and 1975 null and void. But, the CA nevertheless affirmed Gina’s conviction for bigamy. So Gina filed a motion for reconsideration. She asked the CA to reverse her conviction, invoking as ground the declaration of nullity of her marriage to Alan. But the CA still denied her motion. Was the CA correct?
Yes. He or she who contracts a second marriage before a judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy and in such a case, the criminal action may not be suspended on the ground of pendency of the civil case for declaration of nullity. Without a judicial declaration of its nullity, the first marriage is presumed to be subsisting. Any decision in the civil action for nullity would not erase the fact that Gina entered into the second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage. A decision in the civil case is not essential to the determination of the criminal charge. It is therefore not a prejudicial question.
The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage is immaterial because prior to the declaration of nullity, the crime had already been consummated. So Gina’s conviction of the crime of bigamy must be affirmed. The moment she contracted a second marriage to Sonny without the previous marriage to Alan having been judicially declared null and void, the crime of bigamy had already been consummated.
Neither would a declaration of nullity of Gina’s marriage to Sonny make any difference. Since a marriage contracted during the subsistence of a valid marriage is automatically void, the nullity of this second marriage is not per se an argument for avoidance of criminal liability. The Revised Penal Code punishes the mere act of contracting a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of another marriage (Jarillo vs. People, G.R. 164435, Sept. 29, 2009, 601 SCRA 236).