Luisito Pulido vs. People
G.R. No. 220149
Facts:
Pulido and Rowena U. Baleda were charged before the RTC with
Bigamy. Records show that on September
5, 1983, then 16-year old petitioner married his teacher, then 22-year old
private complainant Nora S. Arcon in a civil ceremony at the Municipal Hall of
Rosario, Cavite solemnized by then Mayor Calixto D. Enriguez. Their marriage
was blessed with a child born in 1984.
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 Baleda. Arcon likewise learned that Pulido and
Baleda entered into marriage on July 31, 1995. Their Marriage Ce1iificate
indicated Pulido's civil status as single.
Hurt by the betrayal, Arcon charged Pulido and Baleda
with Bigamy. 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, on the other hand, 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 of lrnus, Cavite. RTC declared her
marriage with Pulido as null and void for being bigamous in nature.
The trial court convicted petitioner of Bigamy and
acquitted Baleda. CA sustained petitioner's conviction but modified the
penalty. The appellate court anchored its ruling on Article 40 of the Family
Code which requires one to first secure a judicial declaration of nullity of
marriage prior to contracting a subsequent marriage. It held that pursuant to Jarillo
v. People (Jarillo), Article 40 applies even if the marriage of Pulido with
Arcon was governed by the Civil Code. Rules of procedure should be given
retroactive effect in so far as it does not prejudice or impair vested or
acquired rights. The bigamist cannot obtain and use the subsequent judicial
declaration of nullity of his or her prior marriage to avoid his or her
prosecution for bigamy. 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.
Issue:
Whether
Pulido is guilty for the crime of bigamy.
Held:
NO. After a careful scrutiny of the records and rigorous
re-examination of the applicable law and jurisprudence, SC find that there is
enough basis to abandon SC’s 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.
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, which reads:
Article 40. The absolute
nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the
basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. The
prevailing rule, therefore, is that even if the marriage is void, a final
judgment declaring it void for purposes of remarriage is required.
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. Pulido
assails the retroactive application of Article 40 of the Family Code on his
case which requires him to obtain a judicial declaration of absolute nullity
before he can contract another marriage.
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, SC 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. In Atienza v. Brillantes, Jr.,
and reiterated in Jarillo and in Montañez v. Cipriano (Montañez), SC declared
thus:
As far back as 1995, in Atienza v. Brillantes. Jr., the
Court already made the declaration that Article 40, which is a rule of
procedure, should be applied retroactively because Article 256 of the Family
Code itself provides that said "Code shall have retroactive effect insofar
as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights.
The fact that procedural statutes may somehow affect the
litigants' rights may not preclude their retroactive application to pending
actions. The retroactive application of procedural laws is not violative of any
right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected. The reason is
that as a general rule, no vested right may attach to, nor arise from, procedural
laws.
Applying the foregoing jurisprudence and keeping in mind
its purpose, SC hold that 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.
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 if the first marriage was 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.
èIn this case, Pulido's marriage with Arcon was celebrated when the
Civil Code was in effect while his subsequent marriage with Baleda was
contracted during the effectivity of the Family Code. 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.
Does the subsequent declaration of the nullity of the
first and second marriages constitute a valid defense in bigamy? è SC rule in the affirmative.
Notably, during the pendency of the bigamy case, Pulido
obtained a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of his first marriage with
Arcon which he presented as his defense. However, the courts a quo, relying on
settled jurisprudence, denied the same and convicted him of bigamy.
SC are not unmindful of the fact that we have
consistently ruled in a long line of jurisprudence that a judicial declaration
of absolute nullity obtained prior to the celebration of the second marriage is
required as a valid defense in bigamy. Upon the enact1nent of the Family Code;
specifically the requirement laid down in Article 40, SC overturned its earlier
rulings in Mendoza, Aragon and Odayat and declared that a subsequent judicial declaration
of nullity of the first marriage could not be considered as a valid defense in
the prosecution for bigamy. Corollary, a judicial declaration obtained
subsequent to the celebration of the second marriage is considered immaterial
in the criminal prosecution for bigamy as relied upon by the courts a quo in
the case at bar.
The existing rule, therefore, 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, SC 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. To start, a brief examination of our
earlier rulings is in order.
In Morigo v. People, the Court held that the marriage of
Lucio and Lucia was considered a void and inexistent marriage, meaning there
was no marriage to begin with, in view of the absence of an actual marriage
ceremony performed by a solemnizing officer between the contracting parties.
The Court declared that such declaration of nullity retroacts to the date of
the first marriage.
Hence, for all intents and purposes, from the date of the
declaration of the first marriage as void ab initio retroactive to the date of
the celebration of the first marriage, the accused was considered never married
under the eyes of the law. Consequently, with the declaration of nullity of the
first marriage, the first element of bigamy, that is, that the accused must
have been legally married, was lacking. Thus, the accused was acquitted based
on the subsequent declaration of nullity of the first marriage as there was no
first marriage to speak of.
After a careful
consideration, this Court is constrained to abandon our [SC] 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. SC 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.
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.
A void marriage produces no legal ci1ects except those
declared by law concerning the properties of the alleged spouses, co-ownership or
ownership through actual joint contribution, and its effect on the children
born to void marriages.
A void marriage is ipso facto 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.