Bigamy Conviction Upheld Despite Later Declaration of Nullity of First Marriage

The Supreme Court has ruled that a person can still be convicted of bigamy even if a court later declares the first marriage void from the start. In Jarillo v. People (G.R. No. 164435, September 29, 2009), the Court explained that the crime is committed at the moment the second marriage is contracted while the first remains legally subsisting. This article explains the ruling and what it means for those considering a second marriage while a nullity case is pending.

The Facts of the Case

Victoria Jarillo married Rafael Alocillo in a civil ceremony on May 24, 1974, and again in a church wedding on May 4, 1975. In 1979, without obtaining any judicial declaration that her marriage to Alocillo was void, Jarillo married Emmanuel Uy in Pasay City.

Years later, in 1999, Uy filed a petition to annul his marriage to Jarillo. In October 2000, Jarillo filed her own petition to declare her marriages to Alocillo null and void. Meanwhile, the prosecution charged Jarillo with bigamy for contracting the 1979 marriage while her first marriage was still subsisting.

In March 2003, the Regional Trial Court of Makati declared Jarillo's marriages to Alocillo void ab initio (void from the beginning) on the ground of Alocillo's psychological incapacity. That decision became final. Jarillo argued that this subsequent declaration should reverse her bigamy conviction.

The Issue

The central question was whether a judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage, obtained after the second marriage was contracted, can extinguish criminal liability for bigamy.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed Jarillo's conviction. The Court held that the subsequent declaration of nullity of the first marriage is not a valid defense in a bigamy case.

The crime is consummated at the time of the second marriage. Under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, bigamy is committed by contracting a second marriage while the first is still subsisting. At the time Jarillo married Uy in 1979, her marriage to Alocillo had not yet been declared void. Under the law, a marriage is presumed valid and subsisting until a court declares otherwise. The crime was therefore already completed the moment the second marriage was celebrated.

No prejudicial question arises from a pending nullity case. The Court cited Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis and Abunado v. People to reject the argument that a criminal case for bigamy should be suspended while a civil action for nullity is pending. As the Court explained, allowing such suspension would let an accused delay prosecution simply by filing a petition to declare a previous marriage void.

The nullity of the second marriage is also irrelevant. Even if the second marriage is itself void because it was contracted during the subsistence of a first marriage, this does not erase criminal liability. Article 349 penalizes the mere act of contracting a second marriage, not the validity of that marriage.

Prescription of the Offense

The Court also rejected Jarillo's claim that the crime had prescribed. Under Articles 90 and 91 of the Revised Penal Code, bigamy, punishable by prision mayor, prescribes in fifteen years, counted from the day the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents.

Jarillo claimed Uy knew of her first marriage as early as 1978. However, she failed to present sufficient evidence to prove this. Her testimony that her mother told Uy was hearsay, since her mother never testified. Without proof of when the crime was discovered, the defense of prescription failed.

Penalty Imposed

The Court modified the penalty. While affirming the conviction, it reduced the sentence for humanitarian reasons, noting that Jarillo's marriage to Alocillo had been declared void due to his psychological incapacity and that she had been subjected to manipulative abuse. The Court imposed an indeterminate penalty of two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum.

Practical Takeaways

• A judicial declaration of nullity must come first. A person who marries again before obtaining a court declaration that the first marriage is void assumes the risk of criminal prosecution for bigamy.
• A later declaration does not erase the crime. Even if a court eventually declares the first marriage void ab initio, the bigamy charge stands because the crime was consummated at the time of the second marriage.
• A pending nullity case is not a prejudicial question. A criminal case for bigamy will not be suspended merely because a civil action for declaration of nullity is pending.
• The validity of the second marriage does not matter. The offense is committed by the act of contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of the first, regardless of whether the second marriage is itself void.
• Prescription runs from discovery. The fifteen-year prescriptive period for bigamy begins when the offended party or authorities discover the crime, not from the date of the second marriage.

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