The Supreme Court has clarified that a subsequent declaration of nullity of a first marriage does not automatically absolve a person from the crime of bigamy if the second marriage was contracted while the first marriage was still legally subsisting. This means that if a person enters into a second marriage without a prior court declaration annulling or voiding their first marriage, they can be prosecuted for bigamy, regardless of any later annulment of the first marriage. The Court emphasizes that individuals cannot unilaterally decide the nullity of their marriage; such determination must come from the courts.

Can a Subsequent Annulment Erase the Crime of Bigamy?

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Edgardo V. Odtuhan (G.R. No. 191566, July 17, 2013) revolves around the complexities of bigamy in relation to annulment proceedings in the Philippines. Edgardo Odtuhan was charged with bigamy for contracting a second marriage while his first marriage was still in effect. The twist? Odtuhan later obtained a judicial declaration that his first marriage was void ab initio (from the beginning) due to the lack of a valid marriage license. This led to the central legal question: Does a subsequent declaration of nullity retroactively negate the crime of bigamy?

The prosecution argued that Odtuhan’s act of marrying again while his first marriage was undissolved constituted bigamy, irrespective of the subsequent annulment. Odtuhan, on the other hand, contended that the declaration of nullity meant his first marriage never legally existed, thus negating an essential element of bigamy. The Court of Appeals sided with Odtuhan, ordering the trial court to consider his motion to quash the information. However, the Supreme Court reversed the CA’s decision, reinstating the bigamy charge against Odtuhan. Building on established jurisprudence, the Supreme Court emphasized the significance of a valid first marriage at the time the second marriage is contracted. According to Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code:

Art. 349. Bigamy. – The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings.

The elements of bigamy, as the Court reiterated, are:

(1) That the offender has been legally married;
(2) That the first 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;
(3) That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and
(4) That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.

The Court clarified that the crucial moment for determining whether bigamy was committed is when the second marriage occurs. If the first marriage is still valid at that time, the crime is consummated, regardless of subsequent events. Citing Montañez v. Cipriano, the Supreme Court emphasized that parties to a marriage cannot simply assume its nullity. They must seek a judicial declaration from a competent court. Until such a declaration is obtained, the presumption is that the marriage exists.

The Supreme Court distinguished this case from Morigo v. People, where the accused was acquitted of bigamy because the first marriage was declared void due to the absence of a solemnizing officer. In Morigo, the first marriage was deemed invalid from the very beginning, meaning no valid marriage existed when the accused contracted the second marriage. This contrasts with the present case, where Odtuhan’s first marriage was initially valid until declared void by the court. The court also addressed Odtuhan’s argument that the declaration of nullity before the filing of the bigamy complaint should absolve him. The Court rejected this argument, stating that criminal culpability attaches at the moment the offense is committed. The timing of the complaint is only relevant for prescription purposes, not for determining guilt.

The decision underscores the importance of seeking a judicial declaration of nullity before entering into a subsequent marriage. Failure to do so exposes individuals to the risk of bigamy charges, even if the first marriage is later declared void. This ruling aligns with the Family Code, which requires a judicial declaration of nullity before a valid subsequent marriage can be contracted. By requiring a court judgment, the state maintains control over marital status and prevents individuals from unilaterally dissolving their marriages. This approach contrasts with systems that allow for easier or more informal methods of marital dissolution.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a subsequent declaration of nullity of a first marriage could retroactively negate the crime of bigamy. The court ruled that it does not.
What are the elements of bigamy in the Philippines?	The elements are: a prior legal marriage, that the first marriage was not legally dissolved, the contracting of a second marriage, and the second marriage having all the essential requisites for validity.
Why was Odtuhan charged with bigamy?	Odtuhan was charged with bigamy because he contracted a second marriage while his first marriage was still legally subsisting.
Did the annulment of Odtuhan’s first marriage affect the bigamy charge?	No, the subsequent annulment of his first marriage did not negate the crime of bigamy because the second marriage was contracted while the first was still valid.
What is the significance of a judicial declaration of nullity?	A judicial declaration of nullity is required before contracting a subsequent marriage to avoid bigamy charges. Individuals cannot unilaterally declare their marriage void.
How does this case differ from Morigo v. People?	In Morigo, the first marriage was void from the beginning, meaning no valid marriage ever existed. In Odtuhan’s case, the first marriage was valid until declared void by the court.
When does criminal culpability for bigamy attach?	Criminal culpability for bigamy attaches at the moment the second marriage is contracted, provided the first marriage is still valid at that time.
What is the penalty for bigamy in the Philippines?	The penalty for bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code is prision mayor.

In conclusion, the Odtuhan case serves as a crucial reminder of the legal requirements surrounding marriage and annulment in the Philippines. Individuals must obtain a judicial declaration of nullity before entering into a subsequent marriage to avoid the severe legal consequences of bigamy. The court’s ruling reinforces the sanctity of marriage and the state’s role in regulating marital status.

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: People vs. Odtuhan, G.R. No. 191566, July 17, 2013