The Supreme Court has affirmed that a person can be convicted of bigamy even if their first marriage is later declared null and void. The Court emphasized that the crime of bigamy is committed when a person enters into a second marriage while the first marriage is still legally subsisting, meaning before a court declares it invalid. This decision underscores the importance of obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity before contracting a subsequent marriage to avoid criminal liability.
The Perilous Path of Second Marriages: Can a Later Nullity Declaration Erase Bigamy?
The case revolves around Victoria S. Jarillo, who was charged with bigamy for marrying Emmanuel Ebora Santos Uy while still legally married to Rafael M. Alocillo. Jarillo argued that her marriages to Alocillo were void due to Alocillo’s prior existing marriage and the lack of a valid marriage license. She further claimed the action for bigamy had prescribed. Subsequently, a court declared Jarillo’s marriages to Alocillo null and void ab initio (from the beginning) based on Alocillo’s psychological incapacity. Jarillo then argued that this declaration should retroactively negate her guilt for bigamy, a contention the Court thoroughly examined and ultimately rejected.
At the heart of the legal matter is Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines and penalizes bigamy. The essential element of this crime is contracting a second marriage while the first marriage is still valid. The legal presumption, as the Supreme Court reiterated, is that a marriage remains valid and subsisting until a court of competent jurisdiction declares it otherwise. Therefore, the subsequent declaration of nullity does not erase the fact that at the time of the second marriage, the first marriage was legally in effect.
This principle was previously established in cases like Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis and Abunado v. People. These cases clearly established the precedent that the criminal case for bigamy cannot be suspended on the grounds of a pending civil case for the declaration of nullity. The Court reasoned that allowing such a suspension would open the door to abuse, enabling individuals to delay bigamy prosecutions by simply filing for nullity of their prior marriages. As emphasized in Abunado v. People, “[t]he subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage was immaterial because prior to the declaration of nullity, the crime had already been consummated.”
Regarding the defense of prescription, the Court found that Jarillo failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her claim that Uy knew about her prior marriage as early as 1978. Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code dictates that the period of prescription begins when the crime is discovered. Because Jarillo could not convincingly prove that Uy was aware of the prior marriage prior to the prescriptive period, this defense also failed. Bigamy is punishable by prision mayor, an afflictive penalty with a fifteen-year prescriptive period.
In terms of the penalty imposed, the Supreme Court found that the lower courts correctly applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law. While the standard penalty was deemed appropriate, the Court, acknowledging the hardship faced by Jarillo due to Alocillo’s psychological incapacity, exercised its discretion to reduce the penalty on humanitarian grounds. This reflects the Court’s attempt to balance justice and compassion within the framework of the law. As such, the penalty was modified to an indeterminate sentence 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.
This decision highlights a crucial aspect of Philippine law: the necessity of legal processes in dissolving marriages. Individuals contemplating remarriage must ensure that their previous marital bonds are legally severed through a court declaration. This ruling serves as a stark reminder that the presumption of a valid marriage persists until judicially nullified, and entering into a subsequent marriage beforehand carries significant legal consequences.
FAQs
| What is bigamy? | Bigamy is the act of contracting a second marriage while a previous marriage is still legally valid and subsisting. It is a criminal offense under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. |
| Does a subsequent declaration of nullity of the first marriage affect a bigamy charge? | No, the Supreme Court has consistently held that a subsequent declaration of nullity does not retroactively absolve a person from criminal liability for bigamy if the second marriage was contracted before the declaration. |
| What is the penalty for bigamy in the Philippines? | Under the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for bigamy is prision mayor, the duration of which depends on mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The Indeterminate Sentence Law also applies, allowing for a range of minimum and maximum terms. |
| What is the prescriptive period for bigamy? | Crimes punishable by afflictive penalties, such as bigamy, prescribe in fifteen years. The period begins from the day the crime is discovered by the offended party or authorities. |
| What is a prejudicial question in the context of bigamy? | A prejudicial question arises when the resolution of a civil case is a logical antecedent of the criminal case, such that the outcome of the civil case determines whether the criminal case should proceed. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that a pending civil case for declaration of nullity of marriage is not a prejudicial question in a bigamy case. |
| Why is it important to obtain a judicial declaration of nullity before remarrying? | Until a court declares a marriage null and void, it is presumed valid and subsisting. Remarrying without this declaration exposes a person to a bigamy charge, even if the first marriage is later found to be invalid. |
| Can the penalty for bigamy be reduced? | While the penalty is set by law, the courts may consider mitigating circumstances or humanitarian reasons when determining the specific sentence within the prescribed range, as seen in the Jarillo case. |
| What evidence is required to prove prescription in a bigamy case? | The accused must present clear and convincing evidence that the offended party or the authorities knew about the bigamous marriage more than fifteen years before the filing of the information. Unsupported testimony is generally insufficient. |
In conclusion, this case emphasizes the stringent requirements of Philippine law regarding marriage and the severe consequences of non-compliance. Individuals must prioritize legal procedures when dealing with marital issues to avoid criminal prosecution and ensure their actions align with the law.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Victoria S. Jarillo v. People, G.R. No. 164435, September 29, 2009