Consummated crime

A LAW EACH DAY(KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY) By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) | Updated October
21, 2015 - 12:00am

Is a person still liable for the crime of bigamy despite the fact that after contracting the second marriage,
his first marriage has been judicially declared null and void? This is the question raised and resolved in
the case of Charlie.

Charlie has been civilly married to Tina for almost 9 years. Since they got married before a Judge of a
Metropolitan Trial Court of Muntinlupa City on Oct. 25, 1992, Tina left to work abroad and would only
come home to the Philippines for vacations. Such situation apparently led Charlie into the arms of another
woman, Nena whom he courted and eventually married on Nov. 12, 2001 in Meycauayan, Bulacan
according to the rites of a Protestant Church. So when Tina went home for a vacation in 2002, she was
informed of such marriage between Charlie and Nena. To verify the information, she went to the National
Statistics Office and secured a copy of the marriage certificate confirming the marriage of Charlie and
Nena. But since she was working abroad, she had no time to immediately take any steps against Charlie.

It was only on March 14, 2006, when Tina’s uncle filed before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of
Malolos, a complaint accusing Charlie of committing the crime of bigamy. And on May 7, 2006, Charlie
was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulacan with bigamy defined and penalized under
Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code as amended.

It turned out however that Charlie had also filed an action before the RTC of Caloocan City for the
declaration of nullity of his marriage to Tina on the ground of the latter’s psychological incapacity to
comply with her essential marital obligation. The RTC of Caloocan has already rendered a decision
declaring his marriage to Tina null and void which became final on May 28, 2006.

Using this final judgment declaring his first marriage to Tina null and void, Charlie claimed that there is no
bigamy to speak of because there is in effect no such first marriage to Tina. He tried to differentiate
between a previously valid but voidable marriage and a marriage null and void from the beginning (ab
initio) and contended that while a voidable marriage requires a judicial dissolution before one can validly
contract a second marriage, a void marriage need not be judicially determined.
But the RTC nevertheless convicted Charlie of the crime of bigamy and sentenced him to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of 4 years, 2 months and 1 day, minimum to 6 years and 1 day as maximum.
Was the trial court correct?

Yes. A judicialdeclaration of absolute nullity of a previous marriage is necessary before a

person can contract a second marriage. Parties to a marriage should not be allowed to
assume that their marriage is void even if such be the fact but must first secure a
judicial declaration of the nullity of that marriage before they can be allowed to marry
again.
In this case, Charlie legally married Tina on Oct. 25, 1992. He contracted a second and subsequent
marriage with Nena on Nov. 12, 2001. At the time of his second marriage to Nena, his first marriage to
Tina was still legally subsisting. The decision declaring his first marriage to Tina became final only on May
28, 2006 or about 5 years after his second marriage to Nena. It is evident therefore that he has committed
the crime charged. Criminal culpability attaches to the offender upon commission of the offense.

If Charlie’s contention will be allowed, a person who commits bigamy can simply evade
prosecution or conviction by immediately filing a petition for declaration of nullity of his
earlier marriage and hope that a favorable decision is rendered therein before anyone
institutes a complaint against him or before he is convicted of the crime charged (Teves
vs. People, et. al. G.R. 18775, August 24, 2011, 656 SCRA 307).