JOHN AUBREY JAMERO

JD-1
Case Digests for Legal Research and Writing

LUISITO G. PULIDO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 220149. July 27, 2021

FACTS:

The complainant, Nora Pulido, filed a case of Bigamy against Pulido and Rowena Baleda before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Nora alleged that Pulido, while his marriage with the former was
still existing and has not been legally dissolved, he feloniously contracted a second marriage with
Rowena.

Based on records, Pulido, then 16-year old petitioner married his teacher, then 22-year old private
complainant in a civil ceremony at the Municipal Hall of Rosario, Cavite, and the marriage was
blessed with a child born in 1984.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.

In 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.

The RTC held Pulido guilty of the crime of Bigamy and acquitted Rowena.

Pulido appealed his conviction to the appellate court on the ground that the first element of the
crime, the subsistence of a valid marriage, was absent. Pulido maintained that his first marriage
to Arcon is void ab initio for lack of a marriage license while his marriage with Baleda is also void
since there was no marriage ceremony performed. In any case, his marriage with Baleda has
already been judicially declared as void ab initio even before the filing of the Information for
Bigamy against him and Baleda with the trial court. However the Court of Appeals (CA) was not
convinced by the contentions and held that the marriage to be considered void due to lack of
marriage license, it must be apparent on the marriage contract and supported by a certification
from the Civil Registrar that no such marriage license was issued, which are not obtaining in the
case at bar. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC with modifications.

Pulido filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the appellate court. Hence, this
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
ISSUE:

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.

RULING:

The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the ruling of the CA and acquitted Pulido.

The court held that 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 shall apply 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.

The court also ruled that 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.
CHRISTIAN PANTONIAL ACHARON, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT. G.R. No. 224946. November 09, 2021

FACTS:

An Information was filed against Christian Acharon by his wife, AAA for violation of the Anti-
Violence Against Women and their Children Act (VAWC Law).

It was alleged that the accused there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously caused mental or
emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to his wife AAA, by denying financial support to
the said complainant.

AAA testified that she and Christian have been sweethearts for six (6) years before they got
married on September 30, 2011, in a civil wedding. On October 6, 2011 or only six (6) days after
their wedding, Christian left to work at Pizza Hut, Brunei as delivery rider. As a placement fee,
they borrowed the amount of P85,000.00 with 3% monthly interest from their godmother,
Emelina So. She and [Christian] agreed that the latter would send money in the amount of
Php9,633.00 per month in payment of their loan. However, [Christian] did not send money on a
regular basis. All in all, he was able to send money in the total amount of Php71,500.00 only,
leaving the balance in the amount of Php13,500.00. For which reason, she felt so embarrassed
with Emelina So because she could not pay the balance. She even pleaded to So not to lodge a
complaint to the barangay. Emelina So communicated to the employer of [Christian] in Brunei
about their debt to her.

Moreover, while in Brunei, Christian maintained a paramour in the person of Melete Domalaon.
The manager of Christian and his board mate, Jovelyn Pastrano disclosed to her the indiscretions
of Christian. The womanizing activity extremely hurt her feelings and caused her depression.

AAA also stated that when Christian left in December 2011, she was jobless. Presently, she is
gainfully employed. She lost communication with Christian in January 2012. According to the
employer and friends of Christian, the latter is living with his paramour in Brunei. She filed this
case because she was extremely hurt and she experienced emotional agony by the neglect and
utter insensitivity that Christian made her endure and suffer.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) held Christian guilty for failure to maintain an open communication
with his wife, his having a paramour while he was in Brunei, and his neglect of his legal obligation
to extend financial support. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) Affirmed the decision of the
RTC and held that the refusal to give financial support constitutes violence against women.

Chrisitan then filed a petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:

Whether or not Christian should be guilty of causing psychological or emotional anguish when he
allegedly failed to financially support AAA and keep the communication lines open with the latter.

RULING:

The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the ruling of the CA and acquitted Christian.

The court held that mere failure to provide financial support is not punishable by R.A. 9262. To
be convicted under Section 5(i), the evidence must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused intended to cause the victim mental or emotional anguish, or public ridicule or humiliation
through the denial of – not the mere failure or inability to provide – financial support, which
thereby resulted into psychological violence. In this case, the private complainant failed to adduce
evidence that Christian deliberately withheld financial support in order to cause her emotional
anguish.

Section 5(i) of the R.A. 9262, although a special penal law, is a mala in se. Thus, criminal intent
must be established before a conviction may be had. In other words, to be punishable by Section
5(i) of R.A. 9262, it must ultimately be proven that the accused had the intent of inflicting mental
or emotional anguish upon the woman, thereby inflicting psychological violence upon her, with
the willful denial of financial support being the means selected by the accused to accomplish said
purpose.

The court held that R.A. 9262 was not meant to make the partners of women criminals just
because they fail or are unable to financially provide for them. Certainly, courts cannot send
individuals to jail because of their mere inability - without malice or evil intention - to provide for
their respective families.