G.R. No. 220149, July 27, 2021 ] LUISITO G. PULIDO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

 HERNANDO, J.: May an accused indicted for Bigamy be exculpated on the basis of the judicial declaration of nullity of his first or second marriage? Challenged in this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 are the March 17, 2015 Decision2 and the August 18, 2015 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 33008 which, affirmed with modification the June 22, 2009 Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 275 of Las Piñas City in Criminal Case No. 08-0166 which found petitioner Luisito G. Pulido (Pulido) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Bigamy. The Antecedents: Pulido and Rowena U. Baleda (Baleda) were charged before the RTC with Bigamy in an Information5 that reads: That on or about the 31st day of July 2005, in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused, being then legally married to the complainant NORA A. PULIDO, which marriage is still existing and has not been legally dissolved, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously contract a second marriage with one ROWENA U. BALEDA, who knowingly consented thereto, which second marriage has all the requisites for validity. CONTRARY TO LAW. 6 Petitioner pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. Records show that on September 5, 1983, then 16-year old petitioner married his teacher, then 22-year old private complainant Nora S. Arcon (Arcon) in a civil ceremony at the Municipal Hall of Rosario, Cavite solemnized by then Mayor Calixto D. Enriquez.7 Their marriage was blessed with a child born in 1984.8 The couple lived together until 2007 when Pulido stopped going home to their conjugal dwelling. When confronted by Arcon, Pulido admitted to his affair with Baleda. Arcon likewise learned that Pulido and Baleda entered into marriage on July 31, 1995 which was solemnized by Reverend Conrado P. Ramos. Their Marriage Certificate indicated Pulido's civil status as single.9 Hurt by the betrayal, Arcon charged10 Pulido and Baleda with Bigamy on December 4, 2007. In his defense, Pulido insisted that he could not be held criminally liable for bigamy because both his marriages were null and void. He claimed that his marriage with Arcon in 1983 is null and void for lack of a valid marriage license while his marriage with Baleda is null and void for lack of a marriage ceremony. Baleda, on the other hand, claimed that she only knew of Pulido's prior marriage with Arcon sometime in April 2007. She alleged that even prior to the filing of the bigamy case, she already filed a Petition to Annul her marriage with Pulido before the RTC of Imus, Cavite docketed as Civil Case No. 1586-07. In a Decision11 dated October 25, 2007, the RTC declared her marriage with Pulido as null and void for being bigamous in nature. This ruling attained finality, there being no appeal filed thereto.1

Issues For adjudication by the Court are the following issues: (a) 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; (b) 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 (c) 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. Petitioner's Arguments: In the main, Pulido contends that the appellate court should have overturned his conviction in view of the absence of an element of bigamy, i.e., that the offender's first marriage be legally subsisting at the time he contracts the second marriage, since the first marriage is void due to the absence of a marriage license. He asserts that the retroactive application by the trial court and the appellate court of Article 40 of the Family Code to his case, when the governing law at the time of his first marriage was the Civil Code, ran afoul of the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto legislation. Arguments of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG): In its Comment,22 the OSG stresses that Article 40 of the Family Code applies to the instant case since Pulido's subsequent and bigamous marriage was contracted in 1995 when the Family Code was already in full effect. Thus, unlike the cases cited by petitioner wherein both marriages were contracted prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, Pulido is required to obtain a prior judicial declaration of nullity of his marriage with Arcon as a condition precedent to contracting a subsequent marriage with Baleda. Hence, the fact that Pulido secured a judicial declaration of nullity of his marriage is immaterial since the crime of Bigamy has already been consummated. The OSG maintains that the appellate court correctly ruled that the certificate of marriage was the best evidence to prove that a marriage ceremony took place, and that the subsequent judicial declaration of Pulido and Baleda's marriage may not be used to exonerate himself from criminal liability. Our Ruling This case provides us the opportune occasion to revisit and examine our earlier pronouncements that a judicial declaration of the absolute nullity of a prior void ab initio marriage secured prior to remarriage is required before a prior void ab initio marriage may be considered a valid defense in the prosecution of bigamy. For resolution of this Court is the subsequent judicial declaration of the absolute nullity of Pulido's first marriage with Arcon which he presented as a defense in the criminal prosecution for bigamy against him. After a careful scrutiny of the records and rigorous reexamination of the applicable law and jurisprudence, we find that there is enough basis to abandon our earlier pronouncement and now hold that a void ab initio marriage is a valid defense in the prosecution for bigamy even without a judicial declaration of absolute nullity. Consequently, a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of either the first and second marriages obtained by the accused is considered a valid defense in bigamy. In consonance with this, we find the petition meritorious. Hence, Pulido's acquittal from the crime of Bigamy is warranted. Bigamy - Definition and Elements

Thus, the main issue for consideration of this Court is the necessity of securing a judicial declaration of absolute nullity as a valid defense in the criminal prosecution for bigamy. Is a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage necessary to establish the invalidity of a void ab initio marriage in a bigamy prosecution? a. 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. The validity of the second marriage is a prejudicial question to the criminal prosecution for bigamy.

As can be gleaned from the foregoing, Pulido and Arcon applied for a marriage license on August 8, 1983 with Registry No. 198 (1). However, the Registrar noted that there was no record of entry of: (a) the date of issuance of a marriage license; and (b) the marriage license number in the record book for marriage application. The original documents of the marriage license and marriage application cannot be retrieved nor found in their custody. However, the Registrar states that these documents could possibly be among those unnumbered marriage application and marriage license that were destroyed due to termite infestation. To note, the Registrar did not categorically declare that a marriage license was issued to Pulido and Arcon nor that it was issued but was destroyed due to termite infestation. It bears stressing that the Registrar found no entry of its date of issuance and license number in its record book, which will likely explain why the original document of the marriage license could not be found in its custody. With the absence of a valid marriage license, a reasonable doubt arises as to existence of a prior valid marriage, i.e. Pulido's first marriage with Arcon, which is one of the elements of bigamy Verily, the marriage contract is the prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.121 "Prima facie is defined as evidence good and sufficient on its face. Such evidence as, in the judgment of the law, is sufficient to establish, a given fact, or the group or chain of facts constituting the party's claim or defense and which if not rebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient."122 However, while Pulido and Arcon's Marriage Contract123 bears a marriage license number issued on September 5, 1983, there is doubt as to the fact of its existence and issuance as per Certification dated December 8, 2008, which essentially affects the validity of their marriage. Thus, there exists a reasonable doubt whether indeed Pulido and Arcon had a marriage license when they entered into marriage on September 5, 1983. More importantly, during the pendency of this case, a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of Pulido's marriage with Arcon due to the absence of a valid marriage license was issued and attained finality on May 11, 2016.124 On June 29, 2016, the RTC issued a Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage125 which effectively retroacts to the date of the celebration of Pulido and Arcon's marriage, i.e. on September 5, 1983, This connotes that Pulido and Arcon were never married under the eyes of the law. Where the discrepancies in the evidence are such as to give rise to a reasonable doubt, the accused should be acquitted.126 "[T]he overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his/[her] guilt."127 The quantum of evidence required in criminal cases is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Section 2 of Rule 133 of the 1997 Rules of Court provides that "[p]roof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind." To overcome the accused's constitutional presumption of innocence, the prosecution must prove that a crime was committed and that the accused is the person responsible.128 Lacking an essential element of the crime of bigamy, i.e., a prior valid marriage, as per Certification dated December 8, 2008 and the subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of Pulido and Arcon's marriage, the prosecution failed to prove that the crime of bigamy is committed. Therefore, the acquittal of Pulido from the bigamy charge is warranted. Needless to say, as to the absolute nullity of his second marriage with Baleda, it was declared void ab initio because of being bigamous and not because it lacked any of the essential requisites of a marriage. Hence, petitioner cannot use the same as a defense in his prosecution for bigamy. 

Summary: To summarize and for future guidance, the parties are not required to obtain a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of a void ab initio first and subsequent marriages in order to raise it as a defense in a bigamy case. The same rule now applies to all marriages celebrated under the Civil Code and the Family Code. Article 40 of the Family Code did not amend Article 349 of the RPC, and thus, did not deny the accused the right to collaterally attack the validity of a void ab initio marriage in the criminal prosecution for bigamy. However, if the first marriage is merely voidable, the accused cannot interpose an annulment decree as a defense in the criminal prosecution for bigamy since the voidable first marriage is considered valid and subsisting when the second marriage was contracted. The crime of bigamy, therefore, is consummated when the second marriage was celebrated during the subsistence of the voidable first marriage. The same rule applies if the second marriage is merely considered as voidable. To our mind, it is time to abandon the earlier precedents and adopt a more liberal view that a void ab initio marriage can be used as a defense in bigamy even without a separate judicial declaration of absolute nullity. The accused may present testimonial or documentary evidence such as the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of the first and/or subsequent void ab initio marriages in the criminal prosecution for bigamy. The said view is more in accord with the retroactive effects of a void ab initio marriage, the purpose of and legislative intent behind Article 40 of the Family Code, and the rule on statutory construction of penal laws. Therefore, the absence of a "prior valid marriage" and the subsequent judicial declaration of absolute nullity of his first marriage, Pulido is hereby acquitted from the crime of Bigamy charged against him. 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. Let entry of judgment be issued.