Dear PAO,

What can I file against someone who deliberately contracts a void marriage to avoid prosecution for bigamy?

Alfred

Dear Alfred,

Please be informed of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Pulido vs People (G.R. No. 220149, July 27, 2021, Ponente: Honorable Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando), where it was held that:

“We cannot simply disregard the effects of a void ab initio marriage and penalize the accused for bigamy despite the clear absence of a valid prior marriage on the mere speculation that this interpretation may be subject to abuse by those parties who deliberately and consciously enter into multiple marriages knowing them to be void and thereafter, evade prosecution on the pretext of a void ab initio marriage. It must be pointed out and emphasized that these deliberate acts are already penalized under Article 350 of the RPC which reads:

“ART. 350. Marriage contracted against provisions of laws. – The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any person who, without being included in the provisions of the next preceding article, shall contract marriage knowing that the requirements of the law have not been complied with or that the marriage is in disregard of a legal impediment.

“If either of the contracting parties shall obtain the consent of the other by means of violence, intimidation, or fraud, he shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty provided, in the next preceding paragraph. (Emphasis supplied.)

“Thus, the dilemma sought to be prevented as reflected in several cases is nothing more but a mere speculation and should not be considered sufficient ground to sustain the erroneous conclusion that to allow the accused to collaterally attack a void ab initio marriage in bigamy cases would render nugatory Article 349 of the RPC. To reiterate, Article 349 of the RPC penalizes parties who contracted a valid or voidable second marriage when the first marriage, which may be valid or voidable, is still subsisting. In contrast, Article 350 of the RPC penalizes those who without being included in Article 349, contract a marriage knowing that the requirements of the law have not been complied with or in disregard of a legal impediment.

“Thus, an accused who contracts a void ab initio marriage may escape liability under Article 349 as it strictly encompasses valid or voidable first and second marriages. However, the accused in contracting a marriage knowing that the requirements of the law have not been complied with or in disregard of a legal impediment may be covered and penalized under Article 350 which addresses the predicament that to permit the accused to use the defense of a void ab initio marriage or to present a judicial declaration of nullity in criminal prosecution for bigamy would make a mockery of the sanctity of marriage by entering into multiple marriages knowing it to be void and thereafter escape punishment under Article 349.” (Emphasis supplied)

As provided in the aforementioned jurisprudence, a void ab initio marriage may be used as a defense in the prosecution for bigamy. However, it was also declared by the Honorable Supreme Court that even if the accused may escape liability under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code for bigamy since it is only applicable to valid or voidable first and second marriages, the accused, in contracting a marriage knowing that the requirements of the law have not been complied with or in disregard of a legal impediment, may still be penalized under Article 350 of the same Code for marriage contracted against provisions of laws.

Accordingly, by deliberately contracting a void marriage to avoid the prosecution for bigamy, the same shall still be punishable with a penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods under Article 350 of the Revised Penal Code.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our application of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net