Case Summary (G.R. No. 238652)
Petitioner
Luisito G. Pulido, convicted of Bigamy by the RTC and affirmed (with penalty modification) by the Court of Appeals.
Respondent
The People of the Philippines.
Key Dates
– September 5, 1983: Civil marriage of Pulido and Arcon (Marriage License No. 7240107).
– July 31, 1995: Civil marriage of Pulido and Baleda (certificate reflects Pulido as “single”).
– December 4, 2007: Bigamy complaint filed by Arcon.
– October 25, 2007: RTC of Imus declares Pulido–Baleda marriage null and void (final).
– June 22, 2009: RTC Branch 275 convicts Pulido of Bigamy.
– March 17, 2015: CA affirms conviction with modified penalty.
– August 18, 2015: CA denies Pulido’s motion for reconsideration.
– May 11, 2016: RTC, Branch 22 of Imus issues final decree of absolute nullity of Pulido–Arcon marriage.
– July 27, 2021: Supreme Court grants Pulido’s Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Applicable Law
– 1987 Philippine Constitution (presumption of innocence; strict construction of penal laws).
– Article 349, Revised Penal Code (Bigamy).
– Article 350, Revised Penal Code (Marriage contracted against law).
– Family Code of 1987, Articles 35–38, 40, 41, 44, 53 (nullity, remarriage).
– Rules of Court, Rule 130, Section 44 (prima facie value of public documents); Rule 133 on proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues
- Whether a void-ab-initio marriage may be invoked as a defense in Bigamy without a prior judicial declaration of nullity.
- Whether Article 40 of the Family Code requires such a declaration in Bigamy prosecutions when the first marriage was under the Civil Code and the second under the Family Code.
- Whether a judicial decree of nullity obtained after the second marriage affects criminal liability for Bigamy.
Ruling
The Supreme Court (“SC”) held that:
- A void-ab-initio marriage is a valid defense in Bigamy trials even without a prior judicial declaration of nullity.
- Article 40 of the Family Code, which mandates a judgment of nullity “for purposes of remarriage,” does not amend Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code or bar collateral attacks on void marriages in criminal proceedings.
- Subsequent decrees of nullity of the first or second marriage are admissible in Bigamy cases and, if established, negate an essential element (subsistence of a valid prior marriage) required for conviction.
Thus, Pulido’s conviction is reversed and he is acquitted.
Rationale
Elements of Bigamy (RPC Art. 349). To convict, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt:
a. A valid prior marriage existed.
b. That marriage was not legally dissolved.
c. A subsequent valid marriage was contracted.
d. The second marriage had all essential requisites but was unlawful due to subsistence of the first.Void-ab-Initio Marriages. Under Civil and Family Code jurisprudence, marriages void ab initio are legally inexistent from inception. No jurisdictional decree is strictly necessary to prove their invalidity in collateral proceedings, including criminal prosecutions for Bigamy.
Article 40, Family Code. Requires a judicial declaration of nullity “solely for purposes of remarriage.” It does not repeal Article 349 or foreclose collateral defenses in Bigamy cases. Those committing multiple void marriages knowing the defects remain amenable to prosecution under Article 350, RPC.
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 238652)
Facts
- On September 5, 1983, 16-year-old Luisito G. Pulido married Nora S. Arcon (22) at Rosario, Cavite; they had a child in 1984.
- The couple lived together until 2007, when Pulido admitted an affair with Rowena U. Baleda.
- Baleda and Pulido contracted a “second” marriage on July 31, 1995, listing his status as single.
- Hurt by the betrayal, Arcon filed a Bigamy complaint against Pulido and Baleda on December 4, 2007.
- Prior to the Bigamy trial, Baleda obtained an RTC decision (October 25, 2007) declaring her marriage to Pulido void ab initio for being bigamous; that decision became final.
Procedural History
- RTC Branch 275 (Las Piñas City) – June 22, 2009 Decision convicted Pulido of Bigamy and acquitted Baleda.
- CA (CA-G.R. CR No. 33008) – March 17, 2015 Decision affirmed guilt with modified penalty; August 18, 2015 Resolution denied reconsideration.
- RTC Branch 22 (Imus, Cavite) – November 27, 2015 judgment declared Pulido’s marriage to Arcon void ab initio; June 29, 2016 Decree of Absolute Nullity confirmed it.
- Supreme Court – Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
Issues
- Does Art. 40 of the Family Code apply when the first marriage was under the Civil Code and the second under the Family Code?
- May a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of a prior marriage be invoked as a defense in a Bigamy prosecution?
- If so, is a judicial declaration obtained after the second marriage a valid defense?
Petitioner’s Contentions
- His 1983 marriage is void ab initio for lack of valid license; his 1995 marriage is void for lack of ceremony.
- Both marriages being void, no subsisting marriage existed to support Bigamy.
- Retroactive application of Art. 40 violates the constitutional ban on ex post facto laws