Nonexistent marriage

Is a marriage, void from the beginning, a valid defense in the prosecution for bigamy even without a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of either the first or second marriages of the accused? This is the question resolved in this case of Rudy.

Rudy was only 16 years old when he married his teacher Mila in a civil ceremony solemnized by the city mayor. Their marriage was blessed with a child born one year later. After about 23 years of living together, Rudy stopped going home to their conjugal dwelling. When Mila confronted him, Rudy admitted having an affair with Annie. Mila likewise learned that Rudy also married Annie about 12 years ago.

So Mila charged Rudy and Annie before the RTC with the crime of bigamy. Rudy, however, insisted that he could not be criminally liable for bigamy because both his marriages were null and void. He claimed that his marriage to Mila is null and void for lack of a valid marriage license while his marriage to Annie is also null and void for lack of a marriage ceremony.

Annie, on the other hand, claimed that she only knew of Rudy’s prior marriage to Mila about 12 years after Rudy married her and that even prior to the filing of the bigamy case, she already filed a petition to annul her marriage to Rudy and that said marriage was already declared by the RTC as null and void for being bigamous. Annie also alleged that this RTC ruling has already attained finality because it was not appealed.

After trial, the RTC convicted Rudy and acquitted Annie. It sentenced Rudy to suffer imprisonment of two years, three months and one day minimum to six years and one day, maximum. The RTC ruled that as to the first marriage of Rudy to Mila, the certifications issued by the Civil Registrar merely proved that the marriage license could not be found, not that it never existed and that the marriage certificate which reflected the marriage license number has a higher probative value than said certification by the Civil Registrar.

This was affirmed but modified by the Court of Appeals (CA) by increasing the penalty to two years, four months and one day, minimum to eight years, four months and one day maximum. Were the RTC and CA correct in convicting?

The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that Rudy’s conviction is not correct. According to the SC, a void ab initio marriage is a valid defense in the prosecution for bigamy, even without a judicial declaration of absolute nullity. Void marriages are marriages without formal or essential requisites, or incestuous marriage or those void by reason of public policy which are inexistent from the beginning and therefore the parties were never married. The Family Code only requires a judicial declaration of nullity for purposes of remarriage but not as defense in bigamy. The parties to a void ab initio marriage are not required to obtain a judicial declaration of nullity in order to raise it as a defense in a bigamy case. It is only in voidable first or second marriage that a judicial declaration of nullity is required as a defense in the bigamy case. So, the RTC decision as affirmed by the CA is reversed and set aside and Rudy is acquitted. (Pulido vs People, G.R. 220149, July 27, 2021)