Pulido’s Defense:

Pulido v. People, G.R. No. 220149 (2021) ● he could not be held criminally liable for bigamy because both his marriages were
G.R. No. 220149 Date: July 27, 2021 Ponente: J. Ramon Paul Hernando null and void.
Key words: bigamy; requirement of a judicial declaration
of absolute nullity of marriage; retroactivity of a void ab Created by: Kenan Gawaran
● He claimed that his marriage with Arcon in 1983 is null and void for lack of a valid
initio marriage marriage license while his marriage with Baleda is null and void for lack of a marriage
Topic: Art. 40 of the Family Code ceremony.
Baleda’s Defense:
PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS ● Baleda, on the other hand, claimed that she only knew of Pulido's prior marriage with
Luisito G. Pulido People of the Philippines Arcon sometime in April 2007.
● She alleged that even prior to the filing of the bigamy case, she already filed a Petition
RECIT-READY SUMMARY to Annul her marriage with Pulido before the RTC of Imus, Cavite docketed as Civil
Case No. 1586-07.
PROVISION
FAMILY CODE, art. 40. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for RTC Ruling:
purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous ● October 2007 — The RTC declared Baleda and Pulido’s marriage as null and void for
marriage void. being bigamous in nature.
○ the RTC dismissed Pulido's claim that both his marriages are void.
DOCTRINE ○ As to the first marriage, the trial court noted that the certifications issued by
“The parties are not required to obtain a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of a void ab the Civil Registrar merely proved that the marriage license and marriage
initio first and subsequent marriages in order to raise it as a defense in a bigamy application could not be found, it’s simply missing… the marriage certificate
case.” which reflected on its face the marriage license number of Pulido and Arcon's
marriage has a higher probative value than the certifications issued by the
FACTS Civil Registrar.
● September 5, 1983 — Luisito Pulido (16 yrs. old) married his teacher Nora Arcon (22 ● June 22, 2009 — RULING OF THE RTC (on the criminal case): Pulido was
yrs. old) in a civil ceremony. convicted of bigamy. Baleda, acquitted.
● After many years, the Local Civil Registrar certified that there was no record of entry
of: (a) the date of issuance of a marriage license; and (b) the marriage license number Pulido Appealed to the CA:
in the record book for marriage application.
● July 31, 1995 — Pulido, declaring his status as single, entered into a second marriage CA Ruling:
with Rowena Baleda which was solemnized by Rev. Conrado Ramos. ● March 17, 2015 — RULING OF THE CA: Affirmed WITH MODIFICATION the RTC’s
● 2007 — Pulido stopped going home to his and Arcon’s conjugal dwelling. He decision. Pulido is guilty of bigamy.
admitted to the latter his affair with Rowena Baleda. ● The CA was not convinced of Pulido's contention that the first marriage was void for
● April 2007 — Baleda learned of Pulido’s SECOND first marriage. She then filed a lack of a marriage license.
petition to annul her marriage with Pulido. SHE FILED A BIGAMY CASE to Pulido ○ Their Marriage Contract dated September 5, 1983 16 indicated Marriage
and Baleda License No. 7240107. it must be apparent on the marriage contract and
supported by a certification from the Civil Registrar that no such marriage
license was issued, - no evidence presented
 ○ further ruled that even assuming that the first marriage was void for lack of a W/N Art. 40 of the Family Code applies retroactively? — YES, with
marriage license, one may still be held liable for bigamy if he/she enters into reservation.
a subsequent marriage without first obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity When the prior marriage was contracted prior to the effectivity of the Family Code while
of the prior marriage. the subsequent marriage was contracted during the effectivity of the said law, we recognize
the retroactive application of Article 40 of the Family Code but only insofar as it does
not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights.
PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS
Void ab initio marriages retroact to the date of the celebration of marriage but also produce
● There is no bigamy, since his first ● Certificate of marriage is the best evidence to legal effects and consequences. With the retroactive effects or a void ab initio marriage,
marriage is void due to the absence prove that a marriage ceremony took place. there is nothing to annul nor dissolve as the judicial declaration of nullity merely confirms
of a marriage license, while his ● Art. 40 of the Family Code applies, since the the inexistence of such marriage.
second marriage is void due to the second marriage was made during its
lack of a marriage ceremony. effectivity. W/N Pulido is guilty of bigamy? — NO.
● Art. 40 of the Family Code should ● A judicial declaration is necessary in order to The void ab initio marriage, in this case, Pulido and Arcon’s marriage, does not exist and
not be retroactively applied, since use a supposed null marriage as a defense in the parties thereto, under the lens of the law, were never married. Its invalidity can be
he was first married before its the bigamy case. maintained in any proceeding in which the fact of marriage may be material, either direct
effectivity. or collateral, in any civil court between any parties at any time, whether before or after the
death of either or both the husband and the wife.

When the first marriage is void ab initio, one of the essential elements of bigamy is absent,
ISSUES-HELD-RATIO i.e., a prior valid marriage. There can be no crime when the very act which was penalized by
the law, i.e., contracting another marriage during the subsistence of a prior legal or valid
marriage, is not present.
W/N Pulido can invoke the absolute nullity of his previous marriage as a
defense in his bigamy case without a judicial declaration? — YES.
Penal statutes are construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.
The subsequent declaration of the nullity of the first and second marriages constitutes a The phrase "for purposes of remarriage" in Article 40 does not restrict the accused in
valid defense in bigamy. Moreover, a void ab initio marriage can be raised as a defense in a a criminal case for bigamy, or parties in cases brought for purposes other than
bigamy case even without a judicial declaration of its nullity. remarriage, from presenting a judicial declaration of nullity of their marriage in evidence.
Article 349 of the RPC and Article 40 of the Family Code should be harmonized and
Pulido is required to obtain a judicial decree of absolute nullity or his prior void ab initio liberally construed towards the protection of the sanctity of marriage and the presumption
marriage but only for purposes of remarriage. However, as regards the bigamy case, of innocence of the accused … Therefore, to penalize and impose suffering on an individual
Pulido may raise the defense of a void ab initio marriage even without obtaining a judicial on the basis of a non-existent marriage renders our penal laws sorely vindictive and
declaration of absolute nullity, since the absolute nullity of a marriage may be proved by resentful.
evidence other than such judicial declaration. The requirement of Article 40 is merely for
purposes of remarriage and not for criminal prosecution. RULING
“[T]his Court is constrained to abandon our earlier rulings that a judicial declaration of
absolute nullity of the first and/or second marriages cannot be raised as a defense by the
accused in a criminal prosecution for bigamy. We hold that a judicial declaration of absolute
nullity is not necessary to prove a void ab initio prior and subsequent marriages in a
bigamy case. Consequently, a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of the first and/or second
marriages presented by the accused in the prosecution for bigamy is a valid defense,
irrespective of the time within which they are secured … WHEREFORE, the Petition for
Review on Certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The March 17, 2015 Decision and August 18, 2015
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 33008 are hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Petitioner Luisito G. Pulido is ACQUITTED.”