VINCENT PAUL G. MERCADO, Petitioner, - of the present case against accused, Dr.
versus- CONSUELO TAN, Respondent. Vincent G. Mercado. More than a month after
G.R. No. 137110, THIRD DVISION, August 1, the bigamy case
2000, PANGANIBAN, J. was lodged, accused filed an action for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against
Under Article 40 of the Family Code, ‘the Ma. Thelma V.
absolute nullity of a previous marriage may Oliva, and in a Decision, the marriage
be invoked between Vincent G. Mercado and Ma. Thelma
for purposes of remarriage on the basis V. Oliva was
solely of a final judgment declaring such declared null and void.
previous marriage
void.’ But here, the final judgment declaring Accused is charged with bigamy under Article
null and void accused’s previous marriage 349 of the Revised Penal Code for having
came not before contracted a
the celebration of the second marriage, but second marriage with herein complainant Ma.
after, when the case for bigamy against Consuelo Tan when at that time he was
accused was already previously
tried in court. And what constitutes the crime united in lawful marriage with Ma. Thelma V.
of bigamy is the act of any person who shall Oliva without said first marriage having been
contract a legally
second subsequent marriage ‘before’ the dissolved.
former marriage has been legally dissolved.
It is an admitted fact that when the second
FACTS: marriage was entered into with Ma. Consuelo,
Accused Dr. Vincent Mercado and accused’s
complainant Ma. Consuelo Tan got married on prior marriage with Ma. Thelma V. Oliva was
June 27, 1991 by subsisting, no judicial action having yet
reason of which a Marriage Contract was duly been
executed and signed by the parties. As initiated or any judicial declaration
entered in said obtained as to the nullity of such prior
document, the status of accused was ‘single’. marriage with Ma.
There is no dispute either that at the time of Thelma V. Oliva. Since no declaration of the
the nullity of his first marriage had yet been made
celebration of the wedding with complainant, at the time
accused was actually a married man, of his second marriage, it is clear that accused
having been in was a married man when he contracted such
lawful wedlock with Ma. Thelma Oliva in a second
solemnized marriage ceremony. The civil marriage with complainant on June 27, 1991.
marriage He was still at the time validly married to his
between accused and complainant was first wife.
confirmed in a church ceremony on June 29,
1991. Both ISSUE:
marriages were consummated when out of Whether or not petitioner is entitled to an
the first consortium, Ma. Thelma Oliva bore acquittal on the basis of reasonable doubt.
accused two (NO)
children.
RULING:
A letter-complaint for bigamy was filed by The Court impressed the need for a judicial
complainant which eventually resulted in the declaration of nullity. It is now settled that the
institution fact that
the first marriage is void from the
beginning is not a defense in a bigamy
charge. As with a
voidable marriage, there must be a judicial
declaration of the nullity of a marriage
before
contracting the second marriage. The Code
Commission believes that the parties to a
marriage
should not be allowed to assume that their
marriage is void, even if such is the fact, but
must first
secure a judicial declaration of nullity of their
marriage before they should be allowed to
marry again.
In the instant case, petitioner contracted a
second marriage although there was yet no
judicial
declaration of nullity of his first marriage. In
fact, he instituted the Petition to have the first
marriage
declared void only after complainant had filed
a letter-complaint charging him with bigamy.
By
contracting a second marriage while the first
was still subsisting, he committed the acts
punishable
under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.
That he subsequently obtained a judicial
declaration of the nullity of the first marriage
was
immaterial. To repeat, the crime had already
been consummated by then. Moreover, his
view
effectively encourages delay in the
prosecution of bigamy cases; an accused
could simply file a
petition to declare his previous marriage void
and invoke the pendency of that action as a
prejudicial
question in the criminal case. We cannot
allow that.
