Pulido v. People
ABANDONMENTFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Luisito G. Pulido (Pulido) was charged with Bigamy for contracting a second marriage with Rowena U. Baleda (Baleda) on July 31, 1995, while his first marriage to Nora A. Arcon (Arcon) on September 5, 1983, was still subsisting. Pulido claimed both marriages were void: the first for lack of a valid marriage license, and the second for lack of a marriage ceremony. Baleda claimed she only learned of Pulido's first marriage in April 2007 and that her marriage to Pulido was declared null and void by the RTC of Imus, Cavite, on October 25, 2007, for being bigamous. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Pulido of Bigamy and acquitted Baleda. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. Pulido appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the first element of bigamy (subsistence of a valid marriage) was absent due to the nullity of his first marriage. During the pendency of the case before the Supreme Court, the RTC of Imus, Cavite, declared Pulido's marriage to Arcon void from the beginning on November 27, 2015, which attained finality on May 11, 2016. The Petition: Pulido challenged the CA's decision, primarily questioning the retroactive application of Article 40 of the Family Code and whether a judicial declaration of nullity of the prior marriage, secured after the second marriage, could be a valid defense in bigamy cases.
Issue(s)
Whether Article 40 of the Family Code applies to the instant case, considering that Pulido's first marriage was contracted during the Civil Code and his second marriage was celebrated during the effectivity of the Family Code; and whether a judicial declaration of nullity of the prior marriage as provided under Article 40 of the Family Code may be invoked as a defense in Bigamy cases. Whether a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage secured after the celebration of the second marriage should be considered a valid defense in Bigamy cases. On the specific facts of the case: Whether Pulido's first marriage was indeed void ab initio, and the effect of the nullity of the second marriage.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and acquitted petitioner Luisito G. Pulido of the crime of Bigamy. Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The March 17, 2015 Decision and August 18, 2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 33008 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Luisito G. Pulido is ACQUITTED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicability of Article 40 of the Family Code and whether a judicial declaration of nullity of the prior marriage may be invoked as a defense in Bigamy cases: The Court held that while Article 40 of the Family Code requires a judicial declaration of absolute nullity for purposes of remarriage, this requirement does not extend to criminal prosecutions for bigamy. The Court abandoned its earlier pronouncements that a judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage, obtained prior to the second marriage, is a prerequisite for a valid defense in bigamy. The Court reasoned that a void ab initio marriage is inexistent from the very beginning and produces no legal effects, meaning the first element of bigamy (a prior valid marriage) is absent. Therefore, the accused should be allowed to present evidence, including a judicial declaration of nullity, to prove the void ab initio nature of the marriage, even if secured after the second marriage. The Court emphasized that penal laws are strictly construed against the State and liberally in favor of the accused, and that Article 40 of the Family Code did not amend or repeal Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. On whether a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage secured after the celebration of the second marriage should be considered a valid defense in Bigamy cases: The Court ruled in the affirmative. It held that the retroactive effect of a void ab initio marriage means it is considered as if it never existed. Therefore, a subsequent judicial declaration of nullity merely confirms this inexistence. The Court explicitly stated 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 or second marriages obtained by the accused is considered a valid defense in bigamy, irrespective of the time within which they are secured. This ruling overturns prior jurisprudence that required the declaration of nullity to be obtained before the second marriage. The Court reasoned that to deny this defense would be to penalize an individual based on a non-existent marriage, which is contrary to the principles of criminal law and the presumption of innocence. On the specific facts of the case: The Court found that Pulido's first marriage with Arcon was indeed void ab initio due to the absence of a valid marriage license, as evidenced by the certification from the Civil Registrar and the subsequent judicial declaration of nullity. The Court noted that while the marriage contract bore a license number, the certification cast doubt on its existence and issuance. Furthermore, the finality of the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage retroacted to its celebration, meaning Pulido and Arcon were never legally married. Consequently, the essential element of a prior valid marriage for the crime of bigamy was absent, warranting Pulido's acquittal. The Court also clarified that the nullity of the second marriage, declared as bigamous, could not be used as a defense.
Main Doctrine
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 or second marriages obtained by the accused is considered a valid defense in bigamy, irrespective of the time it is secured.