JARILLO VS PEOPLE

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, and in such a case the criminal case may not
be suspended on the ground of the pendency of a civil case for declaration of nullity. The reason
is that, without a judicial declaration of its nullity, the first marriage is presumed to be subsisting.

Facts:
• Bigamy case against Victoria S. Jarillo
• May 24, 1964 Civil ceremony with Rafael Allocillo (church wedding the next year)
• Nov 26, 1979 Civil ceremony with Emmanuel Uy (church wedding in 1995)
• Jan 12, 1999 Discovery of 2nd marriage by Emmanuel Uy
• October 5, 2000 Jarillo filed for annulment with Allocillo
• July 9, 2001 RTC found her guilty. CA affirmed
• March 28, 2003 Marriages to Alocillo declared null and void ab initio on the ground of Alocillo’s
psychological incapacity

Issue: WON the declaration of void marriage should retroact so as to acquit Jarillo of the crime of
bigamy? No.

Held:
In the case at bar, respondent was for all legal intents and purposes regarded as a married man at
the time he contracted his second marriage with petitioner. Against this legal backdrop, any
decision in the civil action for nullity would not erase the fact that respondent 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.

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 because at the
time of the celebration of the second marriage, petitioner’s marriage to Alocillo, which had not yet
been declared null and void by a court of competent jurisdiction, was deemed valid and subsisting.
Neither would a judicial declaration of the nullity of petitioner’s marriage to Uy make any difference.
10 As held in Tenebro, "[s]ince a marriage contracted during the subsistence of a valid marriage is
automatically void, the nullity of this second marriage is not per se an argument for the avoidance
of criminal liability for bigamy. x x x A plain reading of [Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code],
therefore, would indicate that the provision penalizes the mere act of contracting a second or
subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage

Decision MODIFIED as to the penalty imposed, but AFFIRMED in all other respects.