JARILLIO V.

PEOPLE 

G.R. No. 164435, [June 29, 2010]

DOCTRINE: 

He who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of the
first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy.

FACTS:

On November 1979, the accused Victoria S. Jarillo,being previously united in lawful

marriage with Rafael M. Alocillo in 1974, and without the said marriage having been
legally dissolved, contracted a second marriage with Emmanuel Ebora Santos Uy
which marriage was only discovered in 1999.

 On the same year, Emmanuel Uy (2nd husband) filed against the appellant a civil case
for annulment of marriage before the RTC. Parenthetically, Jarillo filed for
declaration of nullity of their marriage against Alocillo in 2000.

 For her defense, petitioner insisted that (1) her marriage to Alocillo was null and
void because Alocillo was allegedly still married to a certain Loretta Tillman at the
time of the celebration of their marriage; (2) her marriages to both Alocillo and Uy
were null and void for lack of a valid marriage license; and (3) the action had
prescribed, since Uy knew about her marriage to Alocillo as far back as
1978. Notwithstanding her defenses, the RTC found Jarillo guilty for the crime of
bigamy in 2001 and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of six years to ten years of
prision mayor.

 On appeal to the CA, petitioner’s conviction was affirmed. It held that petitioner
committed bigamy when she contracted marriage with Emmanuel Santos Uy
because, at that time, her marriage to Rafael Alocillo had not yet been declared null
and void by the court. This being so, the presumption is, her previous marriage to
Alocillo was still existing at the time of her marriage to Uy. The CA also struck down,
for lack of sufficient evidence, petitioner’s contentions that her marriages were
celebrated without a marriage license, and that Uy had notice of her previous
marriage as far back as 1978.

 In the meantime, the RTC rendered a decision in 2003, declaring petitioner’s 1974
marriage to Alocillo null and void ab initio on the ground of Alocillo’s psychological
incapacity. Said decision became final and executory. In her motion for
reconsideration, petitioner invoked said declaration of nullity as a ground for the
reversal of her conviction.

ISSUE: 

W/N CA committed a reversible error in affirming the conviction of Jarillo for

the crime of bigamy despite the supervening proof that her marriage to Alocillo had
been declared void.
HELD: 

No. Jarillo’s conviction of the crime of bigamy must be affirmed. The subsequent

judicial declaration of nullity of her marriage to Alocillo cannot be considered a valid
defense in the crime of bigamy. The moment petitioner contracted a second marriage
without the previous one having been judicially declared null and void, the crime of
bigamy was already consummated. Under the law, a marriage, even one which is void
or voidable, shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding.

 The outcome of the civil case for annulment of petitioner’s marriage to [private
complainant] had no bearing upon the determination of petitioner’s innocence or
guilt in the criminal case for bigamy, because all that is required for the charge of
bigamy to prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at the time the second
marriage is contracted.

Without a judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage, it is presumed to be

subsisting. Any decision in the civil action for nullity would not erase the fact that the
guilty party entered into a second marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage.
Thus, a decision in the civil case is not essential to the determination of
the criminal charge. It is, therefore, not a prejudicial question.

JARILLO v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 164435, June 29, 2010

 Category: Persons and Family Relations
On November 1979, the petitioner, being previously married in 1974, and without the
said marriage having been legally dissolved, contracted a second marriage. The RTC
found petitioner guilty of bigamy in 2001. In 2003, judgment was promulgated declaring
petitioner’s 1974 marriage null and void ab initio on the ground of petitioner spouse’s
psychological incapacity. In her motion for reconsideration, petitioner invoked said
declaration of nullity as a ground for the reversal of her conviction.

Petitioner’s conviction of the crime of bigamy must be affirmed. The subsequent judicial
declaration of nullity of her marriage to Alocillo cannot be considered a valid defense in
the crime of bigamy. The moment petitioner contracted a second marriage without the
previous one having been judicially declared null and void, the crime of bigamy was
already consummated. Under the law, a marriage, even one which is void or voidable,
shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding.

Without a judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage, it is presumed to be

subsisting. Any decision in the civil action for nullity would not erase the fact that the
guilty party entered into a second marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage.
Thus, a decision in the civil case is not essential to the determination of the criminal
charge. It is, therefore, not a prejudicial question.