Summary
In the leading case of Pulido v. People, G.R. No. 220149, 27 July 2021, Hernando, J., the SC en banc exonerated the accused from criminal liability for bigamy when during the pendency of the bigamy case, a judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage was entered. Previous decisions had held that a person who contracts a second marriage without a prior court declaration of nullity of his first marriage was liable for bigamy even if the first marriage was subsequently declared void by a court. The SC held in Pulido that the requirement of a prior judicial declaration of nullity under Article 40 of the Family Code, which is for purposes only of remarriage, should not have been extended to criminal cases.
Case law prior to Pulido
The crime of bigamy is committed by any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage while validly married to another. (See Article 349, Revised Penal Code).
Consider this hypothetical: Horace contracted marriage with Annika. Horace then filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage to Annika on the ground of absence of a marriage license. While this petition was pending, Horace contracted a second marriage with Blondie. When Annika learned of this, she filed a criminal complaint with the prosecutor for bigamy against Horace. The information for bigamy against Horace was subsequently filed in court.
(a) Horace filed a motion for suspension of the criminal case on the ground that the marriage nullification case presented a prejudicial question. Should the motion be granted?
(b) Assume that the motion was not granted. During the pendency of the criminal case, judgment was entered declaring the marriage between Horace and Annika as void because of the absence of a marriage license. Will the judgment exonerate Horace from criminal liability?
Prior to Pulido, the answer to (a) was in the negative. The petition for declaration of nullity of marriage will not pose a prejudicial question since, as will be discussed in the answer to (b), Horace can still be convicted of bigamy even if his prior marriage to Annika was later nullified.
The answer to (b) was also in the negative. In a line of cases, the Supreme Court has held that a spouse cannot take the law into his own hands and contract marriage without a previous judicial declaration of nullity of the prior marriage. “Persons intending to contract a second marriage must first secure a judicial declaration of nullity of their first marriage. If they proceed with the second marriage without the judicial declaration, they are guilty of bigamy regardless of evidence of the nullity of the first marriage.” (See Vitangcol v. People, 780 SCRA 598 [2016]). This holding was based on Article 40 of the Family Code which provides that “[t]he absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.”
The Pulido case
In Pulido, the petitioner contracted marriage with a woman whom we shall refer to as W1. Subsequently, petitioner contracted marriage with another woman, W2. Stung by this betrayal, W1 filed a complaint for bigamy against the petitioner. The petitioner’s defense was that his marriage with W1 was void because of the absence of a marriage license. In accordance with the then case law, the petitioner was however convicted by the RTC of Las Piñas City since there was no prior judicial declaration of his marriage with W1 at the time he married W2. The Court of Appeals affirmed the petitioner’s conviction and the case was elevated to the Supreme Court. While the case was pending in the Supreme Court, a judgment was entered by the RTC of Imus, Cavite, declaring the marriage between the petitioner and W1 as void due to the absence of a marriage license.
With this development, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner should be exonerated from criminal liability. The High Court stated that for bigamy to arise, there must have been a prior valid marriage. The fact that the judicial declaration of nullity was obtained after the accused had contracted the second marriage will still not give rise to bigamy because a void marriage is inexistent from the very beginning.
With respect to Article 40 of the Family Code, the Court held that its application to a bigamy charge was not warranted. The Court held that by the express terms of Article 40, the prior judicial declaration of nullity of the marriage is a requirement only for purposes of remarriage and that Article 40 should not have been construed as imposing a requirement for the accused to raise the defense of nullity of the first marriage.
Thus, in the light of Pulido, the answer now to (b) of the hypothetical is that the judgment of nullification will exonerate Horace from criminal liability for bigamy.
Effect of Pulido on prior rulings re prejudicial question
The doctrine laid down in Pulido will necessarily call for a revisit of previous doctrines which held that a pending marriage nullification case will not pose a prejudicial question in a bigamy case.
In light of Pulido, the answer to (a) of the hypothetical is that the motion for suspension on the ground of prejudicial question should be granted. The resolution of the issue of whether the prior marriage between Horace and W1 is valid is determinative of whether the criminal case for bigamy will proceed.
It should be noted that by virtue of the 1 December 2000 amendments to the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the civil case in order to pose a prejudicial question must have been filed prior to the institution of the criminal case. Hence, if the civil case for marriage nullification was filed after the criminal case had been instituted, there will be no suspension of the criminal case on the ground of prejudicial question.
In such a case, the remedy of the accused is to prove the nullity of his prior marriage in the criminal case. Pulido held that a prior judicial declaration is not the sole means of proving the nullity of the prior marriage. The accused may collaterally attack the validity of the first marriage by introducing evidence, for example, that no marriage license was obtained therein. The Court held that a certification from the LCR that no record of a marriage license was found in its record would cast reasonable doubt on the accused’s guilt.
Retroactive effect of Pulido
What about an accused who had been convicted of bigamy notwithstanding a judicial declaration of nullity of his marriage? May he invoke the Pulido doctrine?
It is submitted that the accused may do so. It is axiomatic that a law should be given retroactive effect if favorable to the accused. (Article 22, Revised Penal Code). Judicial decisions favorable to an accused should be given retroactive effect since such decisions form part of the law in accordance with Article 8 of the Civil Code and so as not to infringe upon the constitutional right of the accused to equal protection of the law. (Gumabon v. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 420 [1971]). In such a case, the accused may file a petition for habeas corpus to obtain his release from prison.
-oOo-
Thank you po for the enlightenment.
May I pose this hypothetical question: What if the husband is validly married and entered into a subsequent marriage which lacks an essential element rendering such marriage void aside from being bigamous. If the W1 sue the husband for bigamy, can he invoke the ruling in Pulido case that the nullity of the second marriage as a prejudicial question? Thank you very much.
Your query is answered by my blog, “Defense of the Nullity of the Second Marriage in Bigamy.” If we will look at Pulido, the nullity of the 2nd marriage aside from being bigamous is a defense. My personal opinion however is that it is not a defense.
How can just being bigamous(void ab initio) not a defense, when in fact it is a defense?
please enlighten me Atty. Thank you.
I quote from my blog, “Defense of Nullity of the Second Marriage in Bigamy: A Closer Look at Pulido and Tenebro.”
The question is whether the defense of hypernullity, rejected by the Court in Tenebro v. CA, 423 SCRA 272 (2004), was revived by Pulido? Offhand, it appears to be so since Pulido states in its summary that the accused may in his defense present testimonial or documentary evidence of the nullity of the first or the subsequent marriage.
My opinion however is that the binding force of Pulido should be limited to the defense of nullity of the first marriage. Insofar as the defense of the nullity or hypernullity of the subsequent marriage is concerned, the relevant statements in Pulido should be considered as merely obiter dicta. Hence, the doctrine in Tenebro, that the defense of the hypernullity of the subsequent marriage is not available in bigamy, is still the ruling case law. It should be noted that unlike in Pulido, the issue regarding the nullity of the second marriage was squarely presented in Tenebro.
Excellent
Atty. Manny, I’m not sure if this question makes sense. In the case decided, there was already a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage pending the bigamy case. Now, what if during the pendency of the bigamy case po, no petition for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage has been filed or decided by the court, would it be proper to raise as a defense the nullity of marriage, albeit without prior court declaration of nullity, and move for the consolidation of the issues for trial in the pending bigamy case?
Yes, it would be proper to raise the nullity of the prior case as a defense in the nullity of marriage. As stated in my blog, “In such a case, the remedy of the accused is to prove the nullity of his prior marriage in the criminal case. Pulido held that a prior judicial declaration is not the sole means of proving the nullity of the prior marriage. The accused may collaterally attack the validity of the first marriage by introducing evidence, for example, that no marriage license was obtained therein.”
Since there is no pending case, no consolidation may be had. There is no provision in the rule for the consolidation of issues, as compared with consolidation of cases.
Excellent writings on the case
I so love your wit, Atty.!
Hello Atty., is there a prejudicial question when the first marriage is merely voidable?
No, since even if it is voidable, it is still valid unless annulled. Hence it would not affect criminal liability for bigamy.
Is this valid in India as well ?
Hi. Thank you for your query, but I’m sorry I cannot answer because I’m not familiar with Indian law.
As I understand it, the rationale of this new jurisprudence is that there is no marriage to begin with that would raise an issue to the criminal liability of bigamy. In effect, it can now be a prejudicial question. Can this be also raised as a prejudicial question if the criminal action initiated subsequent to a civil action for declaration of nullity involved is parricide or other crimes with marriage as an essential element?
Regarding parricide, offhand I think the pendency of a nullity case would not pose a prejudicial question per Pimentel v. Pimentel, 13 Sep 2010.
Hi Atty! Thank you for this. May I ask what the effect of this ruling would be insofar as the validity of the second marriage is concerned? Will the second marriage not be considered void anymore considering that it is no longer bigamous? Or should Pulido be strictly limited to the criminal liability. Thank you!
Hi Jane. The second marriage must observe the requirement under Article 40 of the Family Code for it to be vailid. If the second marriage was contracted without a prior judicial declaration of nullity of the previous marriage, the second marriage would be void.
Thank you so much for clarifying, Atty. Riguera!