Pulido vs.

People (2021)

Summary Cases:

● Pulido vs. People

Subject: A judicial declaration of absolute nullity of either the first and second marriages obtained by the
accused is considered a valid defense in bigamy; Bigamy - Definition and Elements; Prior to the
effectivity of the Family Code, a void ab initio marriage can be raised as a defense in a bigamy case
even without a judicial declaration of its nullity; Article 40 of the Family Code applies retroactively to
marriages celebrated before the Family Code insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or
acquired rights. Thus, judicial declaration of nullity is required for prior marriages contracted before the
effectivity of the Family Code but only for purposes of remarriage; Subsequent declaration of the nullity
of the first and second marriages constitute a valid defense in bigamy; Retroactive effects of a void ab
initio marriage in criminal prosecutions for bigamy; Article 40 of the Family Code requires a judicial
declaration of absolute nullity for purposes of remarriage but not as a defense in bigamy. Article 40 did
not amend or repeal Article 349 of the RPC; Penal laws are strictly construed against the State and
liberally in favor of the accused;

Facts:

On September 5, 1983, then 16-year old Luisito G. Pulido (petitioner) married his teacher, then 22-year
old Nora S. Arcon (private complainant) in a civil ceremony in Cavite. The couple lived together until
2007 when Pulido stopped going home to their conjugal dwelling. When confronted by Arcon, Pulido
admitted to his affair with Rowena Baleda. Arcon likewise learned that Pulido and Baleda entered into
marriage on July 31, 1995 which was solemnized by Reverend Conrado P. Ramos and their Marriage
Certificate indicated Pulido's civil status as single.

Arcon charged Pulido and Baleda with Bigamy on December 4, 2007. In his defense, Pulido insisted that
he could not be held criminally liable for bigamy because both his marriages were null and void. He
claimed that his marriage with Arcon in 1983 is null and void for lack of a valid marriage license while his
marriage with Baleda is null and void for lack of a marriage ceremony.

Baleda, claimed that she only knew of Pulido's prior marriage with Arcon sometime in April 2007. She
alleged that even prior to the filing of the bigamy case, she already filed a Petition to Annul her marriage
with Pulido before the RTC. In a Decision dated October 25, 2007, the RTC declared her marriage with
Pulido as null and void for being bigamous in nature. This ruling attained finality,

The RTC convicted Pulido of Bigamy and acquitted Baleda. As to the first marriage, the RTC noted that
the certifications issued by the Civil Registrar merely proved that the marriage license and marriage
application could not be found, not that they never existed or were never issued. It held that the marriage
certificate which reflected on its face the marriage license number of Pulido and Arcon's marriage has a
higher probative value than the certifications issued by the Civil Registrar. Thus, the RTC upheld the
validity of Pulido's marriage with Arcon.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) sustained Pulido's conviction but modified the penalty. The CA
applied Article 40 of the Family Code and ruled that even assuming that the first marriage was void for
lack of a marriage license, one may still be held liable for bigamy if he/she enters into a subsequent
marriage without first obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity of the prior marriage. Moreover, the
subsequent judicial declaration of the second marriage for being bigamous in nature does not bar the
prosecution of Pulido for the crime of bigamy. Motion for Reconsideration was denied. Hence, this
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
| Page 1 of 6
Meanwhile, on June 29, 2016, the RTC issued the Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage between
Pulido and Arcon.

Held: Pulido is Acquitted from Bigamy

A judicial declaration of absolute nullity of either the first and second marriages obtained by the
accused is considered a valid defense in bigamy

1. For resolution of this Court is the subsequent judicial declaration of the absolute nullity of Pulido's first
marriage with Arcon which he presented as a defense in the criminal prosecution for bigamy against him.
This case provides us the opportune occasion to revisit and examine our earlier pronouncements that a
judicial declaration of the absolute nullity of a prior void ab initio marriage secured prior to remarriage is
required before a prior void ab initio marriage may be considered a valid defense in the prosecution of
bigamy.

2. After a careful scrutiny of the records and rigorous reexamination of the applicable law and
jurisprudence, we find that there is enough basis to abandon our earlier pronouncement and now hold
that a void ab initio marriage is a valid defense in the prosecution for bigamy even without a judicial
declaration of absolute nullity. Consequently, a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of either the
first and second marriages obtained by the accused is considered a valid defense in bigamy.

Bigamy - Definition and Elements

3. Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) defines and penalizes Bigamy. The rationale for
prosecuting an individual who contracted a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage
has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared, presumptively dead, is to
preserve and ensure the juridical tie of marriage established by law.

4. For one to be held guilty of bigamy, the prosecution must prove the following: (a) that the offender has
been legally married; (b) that the first marriage has not been legally dissolved, or in case his or her
spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code; (c)
that he or she contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and (d) that the second or subsequent
marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. it is vital in the prosecution for bigamy that the
alleged second marriage, having all the essential requirements, would be valid were it not for the
subsistence of the first marriage.

5. Pulido married Arcon on September 5, 1983. Thereafter, he contracted a second marriage with
Baleda on July 31, 1995 without having his first marriage with Arcon legally dissolved. Pulido and
Baleda's marriage has all the essential requisites for validity had it not for the existing first marriage.
Thereafter, Pulido's first marriage with Arcon and second marriage with Baleda were judicially declared
void for lack of a valid marriage license and for being bigamous, respectively.

Prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, a void ab initio marriage can be raised as a defense in a
bigamy case even without a judicial declaration of its nullity

6. Prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, the Court has inconsistent pronouncements concerning the
necessity of a judicial declaration of nullity of the prior void marriage as a defense in a bigamy case.
Under the case law, when both the prior and subsequent marriages were contracted prior to the
effectivity of the Family Code, a void ab initio marriage can be raised as a defense in a bigamy case
even without a judicial declaration of its nullity. Nonetheless, the Court recognized that an action for
nullity of the second marriage is a prejudicial question to the criminal prosecution for bigamy.
| Page 2 of 6
Article 40 of the Family Code applies retroactively to marriages celebrated before the Family
Code insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights. Thus, judicial
declaration of nullity is required for prior marriages
contracted before the effectivity of the Family Code but only for purposes of remarriage.

7. Upon the enactment of the Family Code on August 3, 1988, the doctrine laid down in Gomez,
Consuegra and Wiegel that there is a need for a judicial declaration of nullity of a prior "void" marriage
was encapsulated in Article 40, Family Code. The prevailing rule, therefore, is that even if the marriage is
void, a final judgment declaring it void for purposes of remarriage is required. Parties to a marriage
should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity; only competent courts have such authority

8. When the prior marriage was contracted prior to the effectivity of the Family Code while the
subsequent marriage was contracted during the effectivity of the said law, we recognize the retroactive
application of Article 40 of the Family Code but only insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested
or acquired rights.

9. Article 40 has retroactive application on marriages contracted prior to the effectivity of the Family
Code but only for the purpose of remarriage, as the parties are not permitted to judge for themselves
the nullity of their marriage. In other words, in order to remarry, a judicial declaration of nullity is required
for prior marriages contracted before the effectivity of the Family Code. Without a judicial declaration of
absolute nullity of the first marriage having been obtained, the second marriage is rendered void ab initio
even though the first marriage is also considered void ab initio. The only basis for establishing the
validity of the second marriage is the judicial decree of nullity of the first marriage.

10. However, in a criminal prosecution for bigamy, the parties may still raise the defense of a void ab
initio marriage even without obtaining a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of the first
marriage celebrated before the effectivity of the Family Code. Such is still governed by the rulings in
Mendoza, Aragon and Odayat which are more in line with the rule that procedural rules are only given
retroactive effect insofar as they do not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights.

11. In this case, Pulido's first marriage with Arcon was contracted in 1983 or before the effectivity of the
Family Code while his second marriage with Baleda was celebrated in 1995, during the effectivity of the
said law. Hence, Pulido is required to obtain a judicial decree of absolute nullity of his prior void ab initio
marriage but only for purposes of remarriage. As regards the bigamy case, however, Pulido may raise
the defense of a void ab initio marriage even without obtaining a judicial declaration of absolute
nullity.

Subsequent declaration of the nullity of the first and second marriages constitute a valid defense
in bigamy

12. The existing rule is that a judicial declaration of nullity of the second marriage is not a valid defense
in bigamy nor a prejudicial question to a criminal action for bigamy. Now, this Court has the timely
opportunity to review and revisit the rationale of our earlier pronouncements, and therefore, adopt a
more liberal view in favor of the accused.

13. After a careful consideration, this Court is constrained to abandon our earlier rulings that a judicial
declaration of absolute nullity of the first and/or second marriages cannot be raised as a defense by the
accused in a criminal prosecution for bigamy. We hold that a judicial declaration of absolute nullity is not
necessary to prove a void ab initio prior and subsequent marriages in bigamy case. Consequently, a
judicial declaration of absolute nullity of the first and/or second marriages presented by the
accused in the prosecution for bigamy is a valid defense, irrespective of the time within which
| Page 3 of 6
they are secured.

14. The aforesaid conclusion is anchored on and justified by the retroactive effects of a void ab initio
marriage, the legislative intent of Article 40 of the Family Code and the fundamental rules of construction
governing penal laws.

Retroactive effects of a void ab initio marriage in criminal prosecutions for bigamy

15. We ruled in Niñal v. Bayadog that under ordinary circumstances, the effect of a void marriage, so far
as concerns the conferment of legal rights upon the parties, is as though no marriage had ever taken
place. A void marriage produces no legal effects except those declared by law. And therefore, being
good for no legal purpose, its invalidity can be maintained in any proceeding in which the fact of
marriage may be material, either direct or collateral, in any civil court between any parties at any time,
whether before or after the death of either or both the husband and the wife. Jurisprudence under the
Civil Code states that no judicial decree is necessary in order to establish the nullity of a marriage; the
exception to this is Article 40 of the Family Code, which expressly provides that there must be a judicial
declaration of the nullity of a previous marriage, though void, and such absolute nullity can be based only
on a final judgment to that effect. However, it must be borne in mind that the requirement of Article 40 is
merely for purposes of remarriage and does not affect the accused's right to collaterally attack
the validity of the void ab initio marriage in criminal prosecution for bigamy.

16. In contrast, voidable marriages under Article 45 of the Family Code are considered valid and
produces all its civil effects until it is set aside by a competent court in an action for annulment. it is
capable of ratification and cannot be assailed collaterally except in a direct proceeding it is considered
valid during its subsistence and only ceases upon the finality of the decree of annulment of a competent
court.

17. Cleary, when the first marriage is void ab initio, one of the essential element of bigamy is, i.e. a prior
valid marriage. There can be no crime when the very act which was penalized by the law, i.e. contracting
another marriage during the subsistence of a prior legal or valid marriage, is not present. The existence
and the validity of the first marriage being an essential element of the crime, of bigamy, it is but logical
that a conviction for said offense cannot be sustained where there is no first marriage to begin with. Thus,
an accused in a bigamy case should be allowed to raise the defense of a prior void ab initio
marriage through competent evidence other than the judicial decree of nullity.

18. Apropos, with the retroactive effects of a void ab initio marriage, there is nothing to annul nor
dissolve as the judicial, declaration of nullity merely confirms the inexistence of such marriage. Thus, the
second element of bigamy, i.e. that the former marriage has not been legally dissolved or annulled, is
wanting in case of void ab initio prior marriage. The term "former marriage" in the second element of
bigamy refers to voidable or valid marriages which may be dissolved by annulment or divorce,
respectively (under Spanish law where RPC was patterned). In effect, when the accused contracts a
second marriage without having the first marriage dissolved or annulled, the crime of bigamy is
consummated as the valid or voidable first marriage still subsists without a decree of annulment by a
competent court. in contrast, when the first marriage is void ab initio, the accused cannot be held liable
for bigamy as the judicial declaration of its nullity is not tantamount to annulment nor dissolution but
merely a declaration of a status or condition that no such marriage exists.

19. In the same manner, when the accused contracts a second or subsequent marriage that is void ab
initio, other than it being bigamous, he/she cannot be held liable for bigamy as the effect of a void
marriage signifies that the accused has not entered into a second or subsequent marriage, being
inexistent from the beginning. Thus, the element, "that he or she contracts a second or subsequent
| Page 4 of 6
marriage" is lacking. The accused in bigamy may validly raise a void ab initio second or subsequent
marriage even without a judicial declaration of nullity.

Article 40 of the Family Code requires a judicial declaration of absolute nullity for purposes of
remarriage but not as a defense in bigamy.

20. In effect, the judicial declaration of absolute nullity may be invoked in other instances for purposes
other than remarriage, such as in action for liquidation, partition, distribution, and separation of property,
custody and support of common children and delivery of presumptive legitimes. Nonetheless, Domingo v.
Court of Appeals declares that other evidence, testimonial or documentary, may also prove the absolute
nullity of the previous marriage in the said instances. Hence, such previous void marriage need not be
proved solely by an earlier final judgment of court declaring it void. in other words, for purposes of
remarriage, the only evidence to prove a void marriage is the final judgment declaring its absolute nullity.
in other cases, the absolute nullity of a marriage may be proved by evidence other than such judicial
declaration. Thus, when one so desires to enter into another marriage when his or her previous marriage
is still subsisting, he is required by law to prove that the previous one is an absolute nullity. In fact, the
Family Code requires the parties to a marriage to declare in the application for a marriage license if they
were previously married; and how, when and where the such previous marriage was dissolved and
annulled.

21. Domingo did not specifically include criminal prosecutions for bigamy in the enumeration of instances
where the absolute nullity of a marriage may be proved by evidence other than the judicial declaration of
its nullity. However, the enumeration in Domingo did not purport to be an exhaustive list. Moreover, the
discussion in the minutes plainly shows that the Civil Law and Family Committees did not intend to
deprive the accused. or defendant to raise the defense of the absolute nullity of a void ab initio marriage
in the same criminal proceeding.

22. Moreover, reading together the provisions of the Civil Code and Article 40 of the Family Code, the
Court held in Cariño v. Cariño that a void ab initio marriage can be subject of a collateral attack even in a
criminal case.

Article 40 did not amend or repeal Article 349 of the RPC

23. Well-settled is the rule that an implied repeal is disfavored by the law. A statute must be so construed
as to harmonize all apparent conflicts, and give effect to all its provisions whenever possible Interpretare
et concordare leqibus est optimus interpretendi, i.e., every statute must be so interpreted and brought
into accord with other laws as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence. The purpose of Article 40 of the
Family Code is not at all inconsistent nor irreconcilable with the criminal prosecutions for bigamy defined
and penalized under Article 349 of the RPC. Neither does Article 40 explicitly or impliedly repeal Article
349 of the RPC.

24. Plainly, Article 40 of the Family Code does not categorically withhold from the accused the right to
invoke the defense of a void ab initio marriage even without a judicial decree of absolute nullity in
criminal prosecution for bigamy. To adopt a contrary stringent application would defy the principle that
penal laws are strictly construed against the State and liberally in favor of the accused. Granted, the
State has the right to preserve and protect the sanctity of marriage; this should riot, however, be done at
the expense of the presumption of innocence of the accused. What is penalized under Article 349 of the
RPC is the act of contracting a subsequent marriage while the prior marriage was valid and subsisting.
This simply connotes that this provision penalizes contracting of a voidable or valid marriage and not a
void ab initio marriage.

| Page 5 of 6
25. This interpretation may be subject to abuse by those parties who deliberately and consciously enter
into multiple marriages knowing them to be void and thereafter, evade prosecution on the pretext of a
void ab initio marriage. It must be pointed out that these deliberate acts are already penalized under
Article 350 of the RPC which reads:

ART. 350. Marriage contracted against provisions of laws. — The penalty of prision correccional in
its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any person who, without being included
in the provisions of the next preceding article, shall contract marriage knowing that the
requirements of the law have not been complied with or that the marriage is in disregard of a legal
impediment.

Penal laws are strictly construed against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.

26. The fundamental principle in applying and in interpreting criminal laws is to resolve all doubts in favor
of the accused, in dubio pro reo. When in doubt, rule for the accused. This is in consonance with the
constitutional guarantee that the accused shall be presumed innocent unless and until his guilt is
established beyond reasonable doubt.

27. 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 lenity calls for the adoption 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 lenity and the rule on strict
construction of penal laws.

28. Accordingly, Article 349 of the RPC, and Article 40 of the Family Code should be harmonized and
liberally construed towards the protection of the sanctity of marriage and the presumption of innocence
of the accused. With the retroactive effects of a void ab initio marriage, the marriage is considered
non-existent from the time of the celebration of marriage. Therefore, to penalize and impose suffering on
an individual on the basis of a non-existent marriage renders our penal laws sorely vindictive and
resentful. All told, 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.

29. Pulido assails the validity of his marriage with Arcon on the absence of a valid marriage license. The
Registrar found no entry of its date of issuance and license number in its record book which will likely
explain why the original document of the marriage license could not be found in its custody. With the
absence of a valid marriage license, a reasonable doubt arises as to existence of a prior valid marriage,
i.e. Pulido's first marriage with Arcon, which is one of the elements of bigamy. Lacking an essential
element of the crime of bigamy and the subsequent judicial declaration, of nullity of Pulido and Arcon's
marriage, the prosecution failed to prove that the crime of bigamy is committed. Therefore, the acquittal
of Pulido from the bigamy charge is warranted.

30. As to the absolute nullity of his second marriage with Baleda, it was declared void ab initio because
of being bigamous and not because it lacked any of the essential requisites of a marriage. Hence,
petitioner cannot use the same as a defense in his prosecution for bigamy.

| Page 6 of 6