Demurrer to Evidence and the Prosecution's Burden in Bigamy Cases: Lapira v. Fariscal

The Supreme Court recently acquitted a woman convicted of bigamy, in a ruling that clarifies how the prosecution must prove a valid first marriage and how an accused may challenge it. The case of Lapira v. Fariscal (G.R. No. 233512, February 26, 2026) is a significant reminder that the burden of proof in criminal cases rests squarely on the State, and that a void marriage—even without a prior judicial declaration—can be a complete defense.

The Facts of the Case

Ma. Fe Imelda Lapira was charged with bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that she married Jimmy Fariscal on April 17, 2001, while her earlier marriage to a Japanese national, Takahiko Sato, was still valid and subsisting. That first marriage was celebrated on August 3, 2000.

During trial, the prosecution presented the marriage certificate between Lapira and Sato as its primary evidence of the first marriage. The defense, however, countered that the first marriage was void from the beginning because no marriage license was ever issued. To prove this, Lapira presented a certification from the Local Civil Registrar of Imus, Cavite, stating that the office had no record of any marriage license application by the couple.

The Regional Trial Court convicted Lapira, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Both courts relied on the rule that a marriage certificate is prima facie evidence of its contents, and that an accused cannot collaterally attack the validity of a prior marriage in a bigamy prosecution without a prior judicial declaration of nullity.

The Issue Before the Supreme Court

The central question was whether Lapira could raise the defense that her first marriage was void ab initio—for lack of a marriage license—even without a prior judicial declaration of nullity, and whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven all the elements of bigamy.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Lapira. In doing so, it applied two key principles.

First, the Court adopted the ruling in Pulido v. People (908 Phil. 573 [2021]), which abandoned the old rule requiring a judicial declaration of nullity before an accused could raise a void marriage as a defense in a bigamy case. The Court held that a judicial declaration is not necessary to prove a void ab initio marriage in a criminal prosecution. This applies to marriages celebrated under both the Civil Code and the Family Code.

Second, the Court found that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. Under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, one of the essential elements of bigamy is that the offender had been legally married in a prior valid marriage. If the first marriage was void, it is inexistent from the beginning, and this element is lacking.

The Court noted that the marriage certificate between Lapira and Sato was the prosecution's main evidence. However, the defense successfully rebutted the presumption of regularity attached to that certificate by presenting the civil registrar's certification that no marriage license had been issued. Citing Cariaga v. Republic (918-A Phil. 770 [2021]), the Court explained that the absence of a license can be shown by a certification from the local civil registrar—which is exactly what the defense did here.

Once the presumption was rebutted, the burden shifted back to the prosecution to prove the validity of the first marriage with evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution offered no further evidence. As in Genio v. People (950 Phil. 311 [2024]), the Court held that the State failed to overcome this burden.

Practical Takeaways

• The prosecution must prove a valid first marriage. A marriage certificate is not conclusive; it is only prima facie evidence that can be rebutted.
• A void marriage is a valid defense in bigamy cases. An accused may now collaterally attack the validity of a prior marriage without first obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity, following Pulido.
• A civil registrar's certification is powerful evidence. A certification that no marriage license was issued can overcome the presumption of regularity of a marriage certificate.
• The State bears the burden throughout. When the defense successfully rebuts the prosecution's evidence, the burden shifts back to the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt—and failure to do so results in acquittal.
• Penal laws are construed strictly against the State. This principle of lenity favors the accused in interpreting the elements of bigamy.

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