"... The SC ruled in this wise: “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 a 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 they are secured.”
Being inexistent under the eyes of the law, the nullity of a void marriage 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 spouses. 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. 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.
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.
What Article 349 of the RPC contemplates is contracting a subsequent marriage when a voidable or valid first marriage is still subsisting. As expounded by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, Article 349 of the RPC was patterned after the Codigo Penal, which was enacted when the law governing marriages was the Spanish Civil Code of 1889, which provides that marriages may be dissolved either through annulment or divorce. The term “former marriage”, therefore, in the second element of bigamy refers to voidable or valid marriages which may be dissolved by annulment or divorce, respectively. Hence, Article 349 should be construed to pertain only to valid and voidable marriages.
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.
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 marriage” is lacking. A subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the second marriage merely confirms its inexistence and shall not render the accused liable for bigamy for entering such void marriage while the first marriage still subsists. Consequently, the accused in bigamy may validly raise a void ab initio second or subsequent marriage even without a judicial declaration of nullity.
True, a marriage is presumed to be valid even if the same is void ab initio without a judicial declaration of its absolute nullity in view of Article 40 of the Family Code. However, the accused in a bigamy case should not be denied the right to interpose the defense of a void ab initio marriage, which effectively retroacts to the date of the celebration of the first marriage.
Miscellaneous
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 not, 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.
Nothing in Article 40 mentions the effect thereof on the criminal liability of the accused in bigamy cases. It would indeed be unfair to withhold from the accused in a bigamy case the right and the opportunity to raise the defense of nullity of a void ab initio marriage when the law does not explicitly say so. Thus, to borrow Justice Caguioa5 s opinion, even with the enactment of Article 40, a void ab initio marriage remains a valid defense in bigamy, and a prior and separate judicial declaration of absolute nullity is not indispensable to establish the same."
Source -
https://batasfilipinas.com/case-digest-luisito-pulido-v-people-of-the-philippines-g-r-no-220149-july-27-2021/
