Consummated

One who enters into a second marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage is liable for the crime of bigamy. But what if the first marriage is null and void and there is already a pending case for judicial declaration of its nullity, could he/she still be held liable for bigamy? This is the question answered in this case of Jenny.

On May 24, 1974 Jenny married Alfie in a civil wedding ceremony solemnized by a Municipal Mayor. Subsequently on May 4, 1975, Jenny and Alfie affirmed their marriage in a church wedding ceremony. Out of their marital union, they begot a daughter on October 29, 1975.

Subsequently, Jenny and Alfie’s marriage hit the rocks when Jenny learned that Alfie seemed to be psychologically incapacitated to comply with his marital obligation. In fact she also heard that Alfie was still married to another woman at the time they got married. Eventually, Jenny met Sammy, fell in love with him and married him on November 26, 1979. Then on April 16, 1995, Jenny and Sammy renewed their marital vows in a church wedding ceremony.

Later on however, Sammy got wind of Jenny’s existing marriage to Alfie. So he filed an action against Jenny for the annulment of their marriage in 1999. Then Jenny was also charged with bigamy before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). For her defense in the bigamy case Jenny insisted that her 1974 and 1975 marriages to Alfie were null and void. In fact, on October 5, 2000, she also filed an action against Alfie for the declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of the psychological incapacity. She thus asked the RTC to suspend the criminal proceedings.

But the RTC did not suspend the proceedings. Instead, on July 9, 2001, the RTC nevertheless found Jenny guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy and sentenced her to imprisonment of six years minimum to ten years maximum. Jenny appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). In her appeal she also asked the CA to suspend the proceedings, this time invoking the petition for declaration of the nullity of their marriage filed by Sammy.

 While this appeal was pending or on March 28, 2003, a decision was already rendered in the action she filed against Alfie declaring their marriages in 1974 and 1975 null and void. But on July 21, 2003, the CA nevertheless affirmed in toto Jenny’s conviction for bigamy. So Jenny filed an motion for reconsideration. She asked the CA to reverse her conviction invoking as ground the declaration of nullity of her marriage to Alfie. But the CA still denied her motion. Was the CA correct?

Yes. He or she who contracts a second marriage before a judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy and in such a case, the criminal action may not be suspended on the ground of pendency of the civil case for declaration of nullity. Without a judicial declaration of its nullity, the first marriage is presumed to be subsisting. Any decision in the civil action for nullity would not erase the fact that Jenny entered into the second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage. A decision in the civil case is not essential to the determination of the criminal charge. It is therefore not a prejudicial question. The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage is immaterial because prior to the declaration of nullity, the crime had already been consummated. So Jenny’s conviction of the crime of bigamy must be affirmed. The moment she contracted a second marriage to Sammy without the previous marriage to Alfie having been judicially declared null and void, the crime of bigamy had already been consummated.

Neither would a declaration of nullity of Jenny’s marriage to Sammy make any difference. Since a marriage contracted during the subsistence of a valid marriage is automatically void, the nullity of this second marriage is not per se an argument for avoidance of criminal liability. The Revised Penal Code punishes the mere act of contracting a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of another marriage (Jarillo vs. People, G.R. 164435, September 29, 2009, 601 SCRA 236).

* * *

Announcement

 Tomorrow, March 2, 2011 at 6 pm, there will be a Holy Mass for the spiritual protection of witnesses against corruption especially Heidi Mendoza. It will be held at the Church of the Jesu, Ateneo University Campus, Loyola Heights. The affair is organized by Simbahang Lingkod ng Bayan with Bro. Jomari Manzano, S.J. and Fr. Albert Alejo S.J., as contact persons Tel 4266101 and 4265968. Please come in white and show your solidarity with around 500 people who will “Bear Witness to the Light”.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]