People v. Jarillo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Victoria S. Jarillo (petitioner) was charged with Bigamy for allegedly contracting a second marriage with Emmanuel Ebora Santos Uy on November 26, 1979, while still validly married to Rafael M. Alocillo, to whom she was married on May 24, 1974, and again on May 4, 1975. The marriage to Uy was discovered on January 12, 1999. Petitioner's defense was that her marriages to Alocillo were null and void due to Alocillo's existing marriage to Loretta Tillman, that her marriages lacked valid licenses, and that the crime had prescribed. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City found petitioner guilty of Bigamy and sentenced her to an indeterminate penalty. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction, holding that the marriage to Alocillo was presumed subsisting until declared null and void by a court. The CA also dismissed petitioner's contentions regarding lack of license and notice for lack of evidence. Subsequently, the RTC of Makati declared petitioner's marriages to Alocillo null and void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, invoking this declaration, but the CA denied it, citing Tenebro v. Court of Appeals, stating that a subsequent declaration of nullity does not erase criminal liability for bigamy. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution, arguing that the CA erred in proceeding despite a prejudicial question, in affirming conviction despite the supervening declaration of nullity of her first marriages, in not considering a pending annulment case, in not finding the case prescribed, in not finding the second marriage void for lack of license, and in imposing an erroneous penalty.
Issue(s)
Whether the CA erred in proceeding with the case despite the pendency of a civil case for declaration of nullity of marriage, which petitioner claimed constituted a prejudicial question; and whether the supervening declaration of nullity of petitioner's first two marriages to Alocillo ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity absolves her from criminal liability for bigamy. Whether the CA erred in not considering the pending annulment of marriage between petitioner and Emmanuel Uy; and whether the validity of the second marriage and lack of marriage license is a valid defense. Whether the crime of bigamy had prescribed. Whether the penalty imposed was erroneous.
Ruling
The Supreme Court partly granted the petition, modifying the penalty imposed but affirming the conviction in all other respects. Petitioner was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from Two (2) years, Four (4) months and One (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to Eight (8) years and One (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prejudicial question and the effect of subsequent declaration of nullity: The Court reiterated the ruling in Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis and Abunado v. People, stating that a person who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy. The criminal case for bigamy may not be suspended on the ground of the pendency of a civil case for declaration of nullity. This is because, without a judicial declaration of its nullity, the first marriage is presumed to be subsisting. The crime of bigamy is consummated at the time of the celebration of the second marriage. Therefore, a subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage, even if it retroacts to the date of celebration, does not erase the fact that the accused entered into a second marriage during the subsistence of a valid, subsisting marriage. The nullity of the second marriage is also not an argument for avoiding criminal liability for bigamy, as the law penalizes the mere act of contracting a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage. The Court noted that petitioner's contention that the marriage to Uy lacked a valid marriage license was not sufficiently proven. Furthermore, even if the second marriage were void, this does not negate the crime of bigamy, as the offense lies in contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of a valid first marriage. On the issue of the validity of the second marriage and lack of marriage license: The Court noted that petitioner's contention that the marriage to Uy lacked a valid marriage license was not sufficiently proven. Furthermore, even if the second marriage were void, this does not negate the crime of bigamy, as the offense lies in contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of a valid first marriage. On the issue of prescription: The Court found petitioner's defense of prescription to be ineffectual. Bigamy is punishable by prision mayor, an afflictive penalty, which prescribes in fifteen years under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code. The prescriptive period commences from the day the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, as per Article 91. Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence that Emmanuel Uy discovered her previous marriage as early as 1978. Her testimony that her mother told Uy about the marriage in 1978 was hearsay and unsupported by corroborating evidence, as her mother was not presented as a witness. Therefore, the prescriptive period could not be deemed to have commenced in 1978. On the issue of the imposed penalty: The Court found the penalty imposed by the lower courts to be proper under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code and the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The penalty for bigamy is prision mayor. The next lower penalty is prision correccional. The trial court correctly imposed a minimum penalty of six years (within prision correccional) and a maximum penalty of ten years (medium period of prision mayor). However, for humanitarian reasons, considering the subsequent declaration of nullity of the first marriage due to psychological incapacity and the manipulative abuse petitioner allegedly suffered, the Court reduced the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.
Main Doctrine
A subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of a prior marriage does not absolve an accused from criminal liability for bigamy if the second marriage was contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage, as the crime is consummated at the time of the second marriage.