Bigamy and Nullity: When a Void Marriage Declaration Does Not Erase Criminal Liability

The Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Antone v. Beronilla (G.R. No. 183824) clarifies a critical point in Philippine criminal law: a person who contracts a second marriage without first obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage may still be prosecuted for bigamy, even if a court later declares the first marriage void. The case also reinforces the procedural rule that a motion to quash cannot introduce facts contrary to those alleged in the Information.

The Facts of the Case

Myrna P. Antone filed a bigamy complaint against Leo R. Beronilla in 2007. She alleged that Beronilla married her in 1978 and then contracted a second marriage with Cecile Maguillo in 1991, without the first marriage having been legally dissolved. The prosecution filed an Information for bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City.

Before arraignment, Beronilla moved to quash the Information. He presented documents showing that the RTC in Naval, Biliran had declared his first marriage to Antone null and void in April 2007, and that this decision had become final and executory. He argued that since the first marriage was void from the beginning, there was no valid first marriage to support a bigamy charge. The trial court granted the motion, relying on an earlier case, Morigo v. People. The Court of Appeals dismissed the prosecution’s petition for certiorari, prompting Antone to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court.

The Issue

The central question was whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion when it quashed the bigamy Information based on evidence of a belated judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage—evidence that contradicted the allegations in the Information itself.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the trial court and the resolutions of the Court of Appeals, remanding the case for further proceedings. The Court ruled on two main points.

First, on procedure: A motion to quash is a hypothetical admission of the facts alleged in the Information. The Court cannot consider evidence that contradicts those facts. The documents showing the nullity declaration were matters of defense that should have been raised during trial, not in a motion to quash. The Court noted that the Information sufficiently alleged all elements of bigamy: that the offender was legally married, that the first marriage had not been legally dissolved, that a second marriage was contracted, and that the second marriage had all the essential requisites for validity.

Second, on the substantive law: The Court distinguished this case from Morigo. In Morigo, no marriage ceremony was ever performed—the parties merely signed a marriage contract on their own, so there was no ostensibly valid marriage requiring a judicial declaration of nullity. In Antone, however, the first marriage was actually solemnized in 1978. The Court emphasized that under Article 40 of the Family Code, the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage only on the basis of a final judgment declaring such marriage void. This means a person who contracts a subsequent marriage without first securing that judicial declaration commits bigamy. A later declaration of nullity does not erase the crime, which was already consummated when the second marriage was celebrated.

The Court also rejected the double jeopardy argument raised by Beronilla. Jeopardy did not attach because he had not yet been arraigned when he filed the motion to quash, and the dismissal was made at his own instance.

Practical Takeaways

• A judicial declaration of nullity is required before remarriage. Under Article 40 of the Family Code, a person cannot simply assume a prior marriage is void and contract another marriage without a final court judgment declaring the first marriage void.
• A belated nullity declaration does not automatically defeat a bigamy charge. If the first marriage was actually solemnized, the crime of bigamy is consummated at the time the second marriage is contracted, regardless of a later declaration of nullity.
• Motions to quash are limited to the face of the Information. An accused cannot introduce evidence contradicting the allegations in the Information at the quashal stage; such defenses are for trial.
• Double jeopardy does not attach to a dismissal granted on a motion to quash. If the accused has not been arraigned and the dismissal is at his own request, the prosecution may refile or appeal.
• Seek legal advice before remarrying. The safest course is to obtain a final and executory judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage before contracting a second one.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.