8 December 2021
Every now and then, a case provides the Supreme Court (SC) an opportune occasion to abandon a doctrine or to establish a new one. The landmark en banc case of Pulido vs People (G.R. 220149, 27 July 2021), penned by Justice Ramon Hernando, is a recent example.
The case revolves around the two marriages of the accused, Luisito Pulido to Nora Arcon, the first marriage; and to Rowena U. Baleda, the second marriage.
On 5 September 1983, Pulido (who was 16 years old then), married his teacher, Arcon (who was then 22 years old) in a civil ceremony. The couple lived together until 2007 when Pulido stopped going home. Arcon then confronted Pulido, to which Pulido admitted to his affair with Baleda. Arcon also learned that Pulido and Baleda entered into marriage on 31 July 1995 where their marriage certificate indicated Pulido’s civil status as single.
Consequently, Arcon charged Pulido and Baleda with bigamy in December 2007. In his defense, Pulido argued and insisted that he could not be held criminally liable for bigamy because both his marriages were null and void. He stated that his marriage with Arcon (in 1983) is null and void for lack of a valid marriage license, while his second marriage with Baleda (in 1995) is null and void for lack of a marriage ceremony.
Baleda, for her part, claimed that she belatedly knew of Pulido’s prior marriage with Arcon sometime in April 2007. She added that even prior to the filing of the bigamy case, she already filed a petition to annul her marriage with Pulido and on 25 October 2007, the RTC of Imus, Cavite declared her marriage with Pulido as null and void for being bigamous in nature. Baleda was acquitted but Pulido was convicted by the lower court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. Pulido elevated the case to the SC.
The main issue, in this case, is can Article 40 of the Family Code be given a retroactive application on his case which requires him to obtain a judicial declaration of absolute nullity before he can contract another marriage, otherwise, he can be prosecuted for bigamy, considering that Pulido’s first marriage was contracted in 1983 or before the effectivity of the Family Code while his second marriage was celebrated in 1995, during the effectivity of the said law?
The SC held that Article 40 of the Family Code applies retroactively on marriages celebrated before the Family Code insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights. Thus, a judicial declaration of nullity is required for prior marriages contracted before the effectivity of the Family Code but only for purposes of remarriage.
In this case, “the SC recognizes the retroactive application of Article 40 of the Family Code but only insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights. xxx 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.”
Meanwhile, does the subsequent declaration of the nullity of the first and second marriages constitute a valid defense in bigamy?
The SC ruled in the affirmative and abandoned its 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. Accordingly, a judicial declaration of absolute nullity is not necessary to prove a void ab initio prior and subsequent marriages in a bigamy case. Consequently, 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 they are secured. 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.”
Lastly, the SC concluded, “A void marriage is ipso facto void without need of any judicial declaration of nullity; the only recognized exception under existing law is Article 40 of the Family Code where a marriage void ab initio is deemed valid for purposes of remarriage, hence necessitating a judicial declaration of nullity before one can contract a subsequent marriage. Clearly, when the first marriage is void ab initio, one of the essential elements of bigamy is absent, 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. 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.”
First published on The Daily Tribune.
For further information, please contact:
Nilo T. Divina, Managing Partner, DivinaLaw
nilo.divina@divinalaw.com
