In Abunado vs. People, the Supreme Court affirmed that a person could be convicted of bigamy even if the first marriage is later declared null. The critical point is whether the first marriage was subsisting at the time the second marriage was contracted. This case underscores the importance of obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity before remarrying, as the marital bond of the first marriage remains legally binding until such a declaration is secured.
Remarrying Before Annulment: Can You Be Charged with Bigamy?
Salvador Abunado was charged with bigamy for contracting a second marriage with Zenaida Biñas while still legally married to Narcisa Arceño. The first marriage took place in 1967, and the second occurred in 1989. Although Abunado later obtained a judicial declaration of nullity for his first marriage in 1999, the prosecution for bigamy proceeded based on the fact that the second marriage occurred while the first was still legally recognized. The Supreme Court had to consider whether a subsequent declaration of nullity could retroactively absolve Abunado of the crime of bigamy.
The Court emphasized the elements necessary for a bigamy conviction: a prior existing marriage and a subsequent marriage with all the requisites of validity. In Abunado’s case, both elements were present when he married Zenaida. The information filed against him did contain a typographical error regarding the date of the bigamous marriage, but this was deemed harmless as the information clearly stated that the subsequent marriage occurred on January 10, 1989. Abunado’s defense that Narcisa condoned the second marriage was also rejected, as condonation does not extinguish criminal liability for bigamy, which is considered an offense against the state.
The argument regarding the prejudicial question – the annulment case filed against Narcisa – also failed. The Court clarified that a prejudicial question must involve a fact intimately related to the criminal case, such that its resolution would determine the accused’s guilt or innocence. Here, the subsequent declaration of nullity of the first marriage was immaterial because the crime of bigamy had already been consummated when the second marriage occurred. The Court stated the judicial declaration cannot retroactively negate the crime of bigamy, as all the elements of the crime were already present.
Article 40 of the Family Code plays a significant role in these cases. It states: “The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.” This means that for remarriage, the marital bond of the previous marriage subsists until a court declares it void. If one remarries without this declaration, he is liable for bigamy. It is the point the court focuses on that the previous marriage was not judicially declared null and void; therefore the crime of bigamy was consummated upon entering the second marriage while the first marriage was subsisting.
The Court also addressed the penalty imposed on Abunado, considering his age as a mitigating circumstance. Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes the penalty of prision mayor for bigamy. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, sentencing Abunado to an indeterminate prison term of two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional as minimum, to six years and one day of prision mayor as maximum. In sum, the Court found that the essential elements of the crime existed and are proven to convict Abunado with Bigamy.
FAQs
| What is bigamy? | Bigamy is the act of contracting a second marriage while a prior marriage is still legally valid and subsisting. It is a crime punishable under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. |
| What was the central issue in the Abunado case? | The central issue was whether a subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of a first marriage could absolve the accused of bigamy for contracting a second marriage while the first was still legally valid. |
| Does condonation by the first spouse excuse bigamy? | No, condonation by the first spouse does not extinguish criminal liability for bigamy. The crime is considered an offense against the state, and public policy dictates that it should be prosecuted regardless of the first spouse’s forgiveness. |
| What is a prejudicial question in the context of bigamy? | A prejudicial question is a fact separate from the crime but intimately connected to it, such that its resolution would determine the accused’s guilt or innocence. The subsequent annulment of the first marriage is not a prejudicial question. |
| What is the significance of Article 40 of the Family Code? | Article 40 of the Family Code states that a prior marriage must be declared void in a final judgment before a party can remarry. Without such a declaration, the marital bond of the first marriage subsists, and a subsequent marriage constitutes bigamy. |
| What penalty is imposed for bigamy under Philippine law? | Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code imposes the penalty of prision mayor for bigamy. The court applies the Indeterminate Sentence Law, considering any mitigating circumstances present. |
| Can a typographical error in the Information invalidate a bigamy charge? | Not necessarily. If the Information contains a clear statement of the facts constituting the offense, a typographical error regarding the date may be considered a formal defect that does not invalidate the charge. |
| What happens if the first marriage is void ab initio? | Even if the first marriage is void ab initio, a judicial declaration of nullity is required before remarrying to avoid a bigamy charge. Article 40 of the Family Code deems the marriage valid for the purpose of remarriage until a court declares otherwise. |
The Abunado vs. People case reinforces the necessity of adhering to legal processes before entering into another marriage. Obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity of a prior marriage is crucial to avoid criminal liability for bigamy. This decision serves as a reminder of the legal complexities surrounding marriage and the importance of seeking legal counsel when dealing with such matters.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Abunado vs. People, G.R. No. 159218, March 30, 2004
Leave a Reply