Luisito G. Pulido, petitioner vs.
People of the Philippines, respondent
GR NO. 220149, July 27, 2021
Justice Hernando
Nature
Facts
1. The petitioner was married at the age of 16 with his 22-year-old teacher named NORA ARCON
before Mayor Calixto D. Enriquez at the Municipal Hall of Rosario, Cavite on September 5, 1983.
Their marriage was blessed with a child.
2. The couple lived together until 2007 that the petitioner stopped going home.
3. The petitioner contracted a second marriage on July 31, 1995 with ROWENA U. BALEDA before
Rev. Fr. Conrado P. Ramos because he presented a document which indicated that his marital
status was “single”.
4. Arcon charged Pulido and Baleda with bigamy on December 4, 2007.
5. According to the petitioner, he cannot be charged with begamy because his first marriage was null
and void for lack of marriage license while the second marriage was also null and void for lack of
marriage ceremony.
6. Balleda knew he was married with Arcon sometime in April 2007. Balleda filed a case to declare her
marriage null and void for being bigamous in nature. The court gave the decision dated October 25,
2007 and no appeal filed thereto.
RTC
7. WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ACQUITTING accused Rowena M. Baleda. In turn,
accused LUISITO G. PULIDO is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy and
he is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of
prision correccional as minimum to 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor as maximum and to suffer the
accessory penalty provided for by law and to pay the cost.
*The RTC dismissed both the claims of Pulido for his marriages are void. As to first marriage, even the
marriage license and marriage application could not be found in the Civil Registrar, the marriage license
number reflected in the marriage certificate of both contracted parties has a higher probative value when
presented before the court. As to second marriage, the lack of marriage ceremony may result to
irregularities in the formal requisites which does affect the its validity.
Thus, the first marriage is valid while the second is void from the very beginning.
CA
8. The CA ultimately affirmed, the June 22, 2009 Decision of the RTC but with modification as to the
penalty imposed, to wit: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 275, Las Piñas, dated June 22, 2009, which adjudged accused-appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to
the indeterminate penalty imposed on appellant. Accordingly, Luisito G. Pulido is hereby sentenced
to suffer an indeterminate prison term of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision
correctional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum.
*Bigamy is consummated the moment Pulido contracted a second marriage with Baleda.
*Pulido filed a motion for reconsideration which was DENIED. HENCE, he applies for review for
certiorari under rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Issue
1. Whether Article 40 of the Family Code applies to the instant case, considering that Pulido's first
marriage was contracted during the Civil Code and his second marriage was celebrated during the
effectivity of the Family Code;
2. Whether a judicial declaration of nullity of the prior marriage as provided under Article 40 of the
Family Code may be invoked as a defense in Bigamy cases; and
3. In the affirmative, whether a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage secured after the celebration of
the second marriage should be considered a valid defense in Bigamy cases.
Ruling
Supreme Court:
1. 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.
Ratio
1. Whether Article 40 of the Family Code applies to the instant case, considering that Pulido's
first marriage was contracted during the Civil Code and his second marriage was celebrated
during the effectivity of the Family Code.
Answer:
YES. Article 40 of the Family Code applies retroactively on marriages celebrated before the Family Code
insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights. Thus, a judicial declaration of nullity is
required for prior marriages contracted before the effectivity of the Family Code, but only for purposes of
remarriage.
In this case, Pulido’s prior marriage was contracted before the effectivity of the Family Code while his
subsequent marriage was contracted during the effectivity of the said Code. The Court declared in Atienza
v. Brilliantes Jr., and reiterated in the case of Jarillo and in Montanez v. Cipriano that Article 40 of the
Family Code, which is a rule of procedure, should be applied retroactively because Article 256 of the
Family Code itself provides that said “Code shall have retroactive effects insofar as it does not prejudice
or impair vested or acquired rights.”
*In consonance with this, we find the petition merits. Hence, Pullido’s acquittal from the crime of
Bigamy is WARRANTED.
2. Whether a judicial declaration of nullity of the prior marriage as provided under Article 40 of
the Family Code may be invoked as a defense in Bigamy cases; and
Answer:
NO. Since the previous pronouncement is abandoned which the “judicial declaration of absolute
nullity of the previous marriage” is immaterial to the current case. Here, the judicial declaration of the
subsequent marriage null and void can be a valid defense on the prosecution of Bigamy.
NO. The court ruled to abandoned the previous pronouncement that “obtaining judicial declaration of
absolute nullity of the previous marriage to be declared void ab initio as provided under the provision
of art. 40 of the Family Code as a valid defense in prosecution of bigamy”. Here, the declaration of
the subsequent marriage void ab initio is a valid defense for the prosecution of a bigamy case
even without the judicial declaration of absolute nullity.
3. In the affirmative, whether a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage secured after the
celebration of the second marriage should be considered a valid defense in Bigamy cases.
Answer:
YES.
Doctrine
1. In art. 349 of the RPC, the elements of this crime, bigamy, are as follows:
a. That the offender has been legally married;
b. That the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent
spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code;
c. That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and
d. That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites or validity.
2. Is a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage necessary to establish the invalidity of a void ab
initio marriage in a bigamy prosecution?
Answer:
In People v. Mendoza (Mendoza) and in People v. Aragon (Aragon), this Court ruled that no
judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of a prior void marriage as a defense in the
case of Bigamy, as distinguished from mere annullable or voidable marriages.
However, in Gomez v. Lipana (Gomez) and Vda. de Consuegra v. Government Service
Insurance System (Consuegra), the Court deviated from its previous pronouncements
in Mendoza and Aragon when it declared that a judicial declaration of nullity of the second
marriage is necessary even though it is presumed to be null and void for it was contracted during
the subsistence of a prior marriage. Subsequently, in Odayat v. Amante (Odayat) and Tolentino v.
Paras the Court again reverted to the doctrine laid down in Mendoza and Aragon.
2.1. Prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, a void ab initio marriage can be raised as a
defense in a bigamy case even without a judicial declaration of its nullity.
2.2. The validity of the second marriage is a prejudicial question to the criminal prosecution for
bigamy.
